ate Coast. Erg. Ces Ctr MR 82-13 Effects of Beach Nourishment on the Nearshore Environment in Lake Huron at Lexington Harbor (Michigan) WHOL. DOCUMENT COLLECTION by Robert T. Nester and Thomas P. Poe MISCELLANEOUS REPORT NO. 82-13 NOVEMBER 1982 | Se ee Ne Se ‘A IN a SNS 2 NR SS" % OS a / < Cry = gh ZERinG BE distribution unlimited. Prepared for U.S. ARMY, CORPS OF ENGINEERS COASTAL ENGINEERING RESEARCH CENTER Kingman Building Fort Belvoir, Va. 22060 Reprint or republication of any of this material shall give appropriate credit to the U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center. Limited free distribution within the United States of single copies of this publication has been made by this Center. Additional copies are available from: Waleconel Technical Information Service ATTN: Operations Division 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, Virginta 22161 Contents of this report are not to be used for advertising, publication, or promotional purposes. Citation of trade names does not constitute an official eugene mene or approval of the use of such commercial The findings in this report are not to be construed official Department of the 7 noeition unless so des UNCLASSIFIED SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Data Entered) REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Sa ae 1. REPORT NUMBER 2. GOVT ACCESSION NO.| 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER MR 82-13 4. TITLE (and Subtitle) 5. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED EFFECTS OF BEACH NOURISHMENT ON THE NEARSHORE Miscellaneous Report ENVIRONMENT IN LAKE HURON AT LEXINGTON HARBOR (MICHIGAN) 6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER 7. AUTHOR(a) 8. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(s) Robert T. Nester Thomas P. Poe 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT, PROJECT, TASK : AREA & WORK UNIT NUMBERS Great Lakes Fishery Laboratory : U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service G31533 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 11. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATE Department of the Army November 1982 Coastal Engineering Research Center (CERRE-CE) 13. NUMBER OF PAGES Kingman Building, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060 56 4. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & ADORESS(if different from Controlling Office) | 15. SECURITY CLASS. (of thie report) UNCLASSIFIED 1Sa. DECLASSIFICATION/ DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE 16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of thie Report) 17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abstract entered in Block 20, if different from Report) Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. 18. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 19. KEY WORDS (Continue on reverae side if necessary and identify by block number) Beach nourishment Lake Huron Biological effects Lexington Harbor, Michigan 20. ABSTRACT (Continue em reverse side if neceasary and identify by block number) In October 1980 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers conducted a beach nourish- ment project at the Lexington (Michigan) Harbor on the southwest shore of Lake Huron, a project designed to mitigate beach erosion attributable to the instal- lation of the harbor. In response to a request from the Coastal Engineering Research Center (CERC), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Great Lakes Fishery Laboratory conducted a Corps-funded study from June 1980 to October 1981 along a 8.4-kilometer segment of shoreline adjacent to the harbor to determine the effect (continued) FORM DD .:an7a 1473 = Ebr TIow OF 1 Nov 65 1s OBSOLETE UNCLASSIFIED SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (tren Data Entered) UNCLASSIFIED SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(When Data Entered) of the Corps" beach nourishment project on the nearshore aquatic environment. The study performed by the service included aerial photographic surveys of the study area; measurements of dissolved oxygen, turbidity, and suspended partic-— ulate matter levels; and collection of lake bottom sediments, macrozoobenthos and fish. Analysis of the aerial photographs showed that the beach face profile changed markedly during the study as a result of beach nourishment. Dredging of about 19,000 cubic meters of beach sediment from an accretion area adjacent to the harbor's north breakwater caused the beach face to recede, while depo- sition of this sediment on a feeder beach south of the harbor caused the beach face there to extend lakeward. Deposition on a second feeder beach south of the harbor of about 35,000 cubic meters of sediment from a land borrow site caused the beach face at the second feeder beach to extend lakeward. One year after the beach nourishment project was completed the beach face in the accretion area had returned to its predredged location, while the beach face south of the harbor still occupied a position similar to that observed at the completion of the beach nourishment project in October 1981. Analysis of the other data collected revealed no change in the particle-size distribution of the bottom sediments, the water quality, or the distribution and abundance of macrozoobenthos and fish in the study area that could be attributed to the Corps' beach nourishment project. It is concluded, therefore, that the beach nourishment project conducted at Lexington Harbor in October 1980 had no sig- nificant adverse impact on the nearshore aquatic environment in the study area. 2 UNCLASSIFIED SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(When Data Entered) PREFACE This report provides coastal engineers the results of a study conducted by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Great Lakes Fishery Laboratory on the effect of beach nourishment activities on the nearshore aquatic environment in the vicinity of Lexington Harbor. The work was carried out under the U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center's (CERC) Foredune Ecology work unit, Environmental Impact Program, Coastal Engineering Area of Civil Works Research and Development. The report was prepared by Robert T. Nester and Thomas P. Poe, Research Fishery Geologists, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ann Arbor, Michigan, under CERC agreement No. W/74RCV CERC 80-45. The authors acknowledge E.J. Pullen, T.A. Edsall, D. Les, C. Mousigian, F. Koehler, W. Porak, J. French, III, and R. Sayers, Jr., for their advice and assistance. E.J. Pullen, Chief, Coastal Ecology Branch, served as contract monitor for this report, under the general supervision of Mr. R.P. Savage, Chief, Research Division. Technical Director of CERC was Dr. Robert W. Whalin, P.E., upon publica- tion of the report. Comments on this publication are invited. Approved for publication in accordance with Public Law 166, 79th Congress, approved 31 July 1945, as supplemented by Public Law 172, 88th Congress, approved 7 November 1963. 47 : TED E. BISHOP Colonel, Corps of Engineers Commander and Director i: If ALICE IV APPENDIX 1 Percentage composition by weight of the fine CONTENTS CONVERSION FACTORS, U.S. INTRODUCTION . .... - METHODS AND MATERIALS. . 1. Beach Face Profile. 2. Sampling Locations. 3. Sampling Periods. . 4 (Substratel vy. werent 5. Water Quality ... 6. Macrozoobenthos . . Tie, (EESN eyes. es tsinkeriasy, cata RESULTS ecm veimeimenmcniwits 1. Beach Face Profile. hey (HOINIENES) Gg Oa 6) 6 3. Water Quality ... 4. Macrozoobenthos . . Soy Shi sites seroma yong DESCUSSTONM@ sien anette ro 1. Beach Face Profile. Zee SUDSELACCI is) emel veri 3. Water Quality ... 4. Macrozoobenthos . . SEM S Mico mret ey meetae i Feitienh ts CONCLUSTON/ 3 <1) een ennte LITERATURE CITED ... . PARTICLE-SIZE DISTRIBUTION WATER QUALITY DATA... . MACROZOOBENTHOS DATA . . FISH DATA (GILLNET). . . FISH DATA (BEACH SEINE) . CUSTOMARY TO METRIC TABLES substrate fractions in Ponar grab samples... . gravel-very fine sand ° ° ° ° ° 2 Results of Friedman's test comparing particle-size distribution among grab samples taken at station 1 on transects I to VI... . Page 28 Sil 35 39 49 53 17/ iL7/ 10 CONTENTS TABLES--Continued Results of Friedman's test comparing particle-size distribution among grab samples taken at station 1 to 4 combined on transects I WO Wil oo 0 oO oe 6h 6 6 dh oo a Oo 8 OS 6 6 oO OO DO Taxonomic composition and relative abundance of macrozoobenthos CHIN eyeraexcl Jon) Uetenekese \enaeion a Wasi eS, 6c) oe) os ici cawiol pen cei wolukon econ Gul -on.G DSOVSIaEN? One, Oylavecyel eVESEiG G 6a so gone OO G pote obo Gro iste 16 o Densakey Ot «Chit OnOMid/Smrwy ee eal cul cyto GP eteteae lah ceca) cont Ve wes ier iret itsy die Morisita's index values (CX) showing the degree of similarity of macrozoobenthos community by station, between sampling periods. Species composition and relative abundance of fish ....... Gillnet catches for all species combined ............ Beach seine catches for all species combined .......... FIGURES ISH alMOREOIN Iseidoore, | S) Wecemloere USES 66 Solo lo 6 6 6 0 o16 G6 Nc The study area with transects and sampling stations indicated. . ILesaiinvopeein \sewaoyore, IG wipins ISSO 6 oo 6 6? d os 6 46 6 66 16 6 6 6 IKARaLiNG IEG leTdoore, 3} Weyesininaie MOBO), 45 6 bod '6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 O86 ILSRGLING EOIN IskeWaloyore, © irexeenianase WOE, o 566 6 616-6 56 6 6 6 6 oO OS Page 7 ALS) 20 20 22 AE 12 CONVERSION FACTORS, U.S. CUSTOMARY TO METRIC (SI) UNITS OF MEASUREMENT U.S. customary units of measurement used in this report can be converted to metric (SI) units as follows: Multiply by To obtain inches 25.4 millimeters 2.54 centimeters square inches 6.452 Square centimeters cubic inches 16.39 cubic centimeters feet 30.48 centimeters 0.3048 meters square feet 0.0929 Square meters cubic feet 0.0283 cubic meters yards 0.9144 meters Square yards 0.836 Square meters cubic yards 0.7646 cubic meters miles 1.6093 kilometers Square miles 259.0 hectares knots Wotshoy2 kilometers per hour. acres 0.4047 hectares foot—pounds 1.3558 newton meters milkliparcs 1 ONOW ss 1073 kilograms per square centimeter ounces 28.35 grams pounds 453.6 grams 0.4536 kilograms ton, long 1.0160 metric tons ton, short 0.9072 metric tons degrees (angle) 0.01745 radians Fahrenheit degrees 5/9 Celsius degrees or Kelvins! lt> obtain Celsius (C) temperature readings from Fahrenheit (F) readings, use formula: C = (5/9) (F -32). To obtain Kelvin (K) readings, use formula: K = (5/9) (F -32) + 273.15. EFFECTS OF BEACH NOURISHMENT ON THE NEARSHORE ENVIRONMENT IN LAKE HURON AT LEXINGTON HARBOR (MICHIGAN) by Robert T. Nester and Thomas P. Poe I. INTRODUCTION The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers conducted a beach nourishment project at the Lexington Harbor at Lexington, Michigan, on the southwest shore of Lake Huron in October 1980 (Fig. 1). The project was designed to mitigate shoreline erosion attributable to the installation of the harbor which interrupted the littoral drift of beach sediments and accelerated erosion of the shoreline south of the harbor. Nourishment was accomplished by establishing a feeder beach on the lake foreshore immediately south of the harbor in the area of heaviest erosion. About 54,000 cubic meters of sediment was deposited to create the feeder beach. About 19,000 cubic meters of this sediment was dredged from an accretion area at the shoreward end at the harbor's north breakwater and pumped to the beach; the remainder was obtained from a nearby commercial borrow site on land and trucked to the beach. In response to a request from the U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center (CERC), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Great Lakes Fishery Laboratory conducted a study to determine the effect of the beach nourishment activities on the nearshore aquatic environment in the vicinity of the harbor. Although the effects of beach nourishment activities on the ecology of marine coastal areas have received considerable attention in recent years (Cronin, Gunter, and Hopkins, 1971; Courtenay, et al., 1974; Parr, Diener, and Lacy, 1978; Marsh, et al., 1978, 1980; Culter and Mahadevan, 1982), the present report represents the first effort to identify and evaluate such effects in a Great Lakes coastal area. IDES METHODS AND MATERIALS 1. Beach Face Profile. A number of aerial photographs were taken throughout the study area, and in particular in the Corps' beach nourishment project area immediately adjacent to the harbor, to describe the beach face profile. Figure 1 is an oblique view of the harbor on 3 December 1980 from an altitude of about 450 meters. Figure 2 is an overlapping series of aerial photographs taken of the shoreline of the entire study area on 16 June 1980 from an altitude of about 1,800 meters. This figure shows both the location of the transects with sampling stations and the beach face profile of the study area. Figures 3, 4, and 5 are aerial photo- graphs taken of the harbor area on 16 June 1980, 3 December 1980, and 6 December 1981 from an altitude of about 450 meters showing changes in the beach face profile in the area where the nourishment activity occurred. oo. OS O oes SJB}aWO|Iy Joquey @ ( uo\bulxe7] OlSVLNO NOYNH (- NYOIHOIN JyVv1 “O8eET tequis5ed € ‘zoqzeH uo7butTxeT °—T eanbta Figure 2. The study area with transects and sampling stations indicated. Lexington Harbor, 16 June 1980. A is the accretion area at shoreward end of north breakwall; B and C indicate erosion along the shoreline south of harbor. 10 Figure 4. ae Meters Lexington Harbor, 3 December 1980. A is the accretion area 2 months after removal of about 19,000 cubic meters of beach sediment; B is the part of the beach that received the 19,000 cubic meters of beach sediment from the accretion area; and C is the part of the feeder beach 2 months after receiving about 35,000 cubic meters of sediment from a nearby land borrow site. W : Figure 5. Lexington Harbor, 6 December 1981. A is the accretion area 14 months after removal of about 19,000 cubic meters of beach sediment; B is the part of the feeder beach that received the 19,000 cubic meters of beach sediment from the accretion area; C is the part of the feeder beach 14 months after receiving about 35,000 cubic meters of sediment from a nearby land borrow site. 12 2. Sampling Locations. Sampling was conducted at four stations located on each of six transects that were established perpendicular to the shoreline in the vicinity of the Lexington Harbor (Fig. 2). Transects I and VI were located respectively north and south of the harbor in reference areas outside the immediate influence of the beach nourishment activities; transect II was located immediately north of the harbor in a beach sediment accretion area created by the installation of the harbor's north breakwater; and transects III, IV, and V were located south of the harbor in the area subject to the heaviest erosion. Permanent struc- tures on land (e.g., buildings) were used as reference points to fix the location of each transect. The four stations on each transect were located as follows: station 1 was established on the 0.5-meter depth contour in the zone of potentially heaviest surf action within 3 to 6 meters of the shoreline; station 2 was on the 2-meter depth contour just lakeward of the zone of heav- iest surf action about 90 meters offshore; station 3 was on the 4-meter depth contour about 240 meters offshore; and station 4 was on the 5-meter depth contour about 460 meters offshore. 3. Sampling Periods. Sampling was conducted at all stations on 9 to 13 June, 21 to 25 July, and 14 to 21 October 1980 and on 8 to 11 June, 13 to 16 July, and 5 October to 13 November 1981. The October 1981 sampling period was extended by a series of fall storms which began on 9 October and prevented sampling with the beach seine until 12 and 13 November. The June and July 1980 sampling periods were chosen to document conditions in the study area before the beach nourishment project was conducted in early October 1980. The October 1980 sampling period was chosen to describe conditions immediately after the beach nourishment project was completed. Sampling in 1981 was designed to document the changes and the level of recovery that occurred in the 8 to 12 months following completion of the beach nourishment project. 4. Substrate, To characterize the substrate throughout the study area, the lake bottom at each station was observed from the vessel deck whenever conditions permitted. The lake bottom was also observed at several locations in the study area using an underwater television system (Video Sciences Incorporated, Model 400495). Samples of sediment to be used for particle-size determinations were col- lected with a Ponar grab. One grab sample was taken at each of the stations during each of the sampling periods; a total of 144 samples were taken. In the laboratory the sediment in each sample was separated into five fractions fol- lowing the techniques for dry sieving in the IBP Handbook No. 16 (Buckhanan, 1971). These fractions were fine gravel, 8 to 2 millimeters in diameter (retained by a No. 10 sieve); course sand, 2 to 0.5 millimeter in diameter ‘(retained by a No. 35 sieve); medium sand, 0.5 to 0.25 millimeter in diameter (retained by a No. 60 sieve); fine sand, 0.25 to 0.125 millimeter in diameter (retained by a No. 120 sieve); and very fine sand, 0.125 to 0.062 millimeter in diameter (retained by a No. 230 sieve). Only fractions smaller than 8 millimeters in diameter and larger than 0.062 millimeter in diameter were retained for analysis. 13 The sediment size data were analyzed using Friedman's test (after Zar, 1974), a nonparametric test which requires only ordinal scaling of data. This test was used to evaluate (1) differences in relative particle size distribution among all six transects (data for all four stations on each transect were combined for analysis) within each sampling period; and (2) differences in relative particle-size distribution at station 1 among all six transects within each sampling period. The percent composition values were ranked within each particle-size category, and the ranked values were summed for each transect to calculate: a Diapoe seca Zee R2 - 3b(a + ee ba(a + 1) » i foe e ie where a is the number of treatments (columns), b the number of blocks, and RE the sum of the ranks squared in each column. Critical table values for combina- tions of a and b were found in Zar (1974). 5. Water Quality. At the surface of station 1 and at the surface and bottom of stations 2, 3, and 4 on each transect during each sampling period, water temperature and dissolved oxygen concentration were measured with a YS1 Model 51B meter and water samples to be used for determination of turbidity and suspended solids were collected with a Van Dorn bottle. The samples were iced and stored in an insulated container for analysis in the laboratory. Turbidity was measured with an H F Instruments Ltd. Turbidimeter, Model 1000. The weights of suspended solids were determined by filtering a known volume of each sample under vacuum on a tared Whatman glass-fiber filter paper, drying the filter paper at 40° Celsius for 24 hours and weighing the tared paper. 6. Macrozoobenthos. Macrozoobenthos samples were collected with a Ponar grab. Three grab sam- ples were collected at each station during each of the six sampling periods. Previous macrozoobenthos studies (Schuytema and Powers, 1966) in the nearshore waters of Lake Huron have indicated that three replicate grabs make up an ade- quate sample. Each grab sample was washed through a standard No. 30 sieve (0.65- millimeter mesh size), and the benthic invertebrates (macrozoobenthos) retained by the screen were placed in a labeled container, preserved in 10 percent form- alin, and taken to the laboratory for processing. Organisms were identified to the lowest practical taxonomic level (e.g., family, genus, or species) and the criteria for assigning individuals to each such taxon were unchanged throughout the study. Although grab sample volume varied, the number of organisms per replicate grab remained relatively constant indicating that most of the organisms were probably confined to the upper few centimeters of the substrate. Macrozoobenthos communities at each station were compared before and after beach nourishment using Morisita's index of community similarity as modified by Horn (1966). This index provides a measure of the probability that individuals randomly drawn from each of the two communities will belong to the same species, relative to the probability of randomly selecting two individuals of the same species from one of the communities. Morisita's index values (CJA) were calculated as follows: 14 = 3 2S) (aay Waa) CAR= wean s s eBid ieuat > be i=1 + i=1 GACT Figs Asean where A and B are the total number of individuals in samples from communities 1 and 2, respectively, and a; and bj are the number of individuals in each species present in samples from communities 1 and 2, respectively. CA varies from zero when the communities are completely distinct (containing no species in common) to unity when the communities are identical in proportional species composition. In comparing the communities, the values of CA were considered to indicate the following: values below 0.500 indicated the communities were dissimilar; values from 0.500 through 0.749 indicated that the communities were similar; and values from 0.750 through 0.99 indicated that the communities were highly similar. 7. Fish. Fish were sampled with a 46-meter-long, 2.4-meter-deep beach seine (0.6- centimeter mesh, stretched measure) and 43-meter-long, 1.8-meter-deep graded mesh gillnets, each constructed of seven 6-meter-long panels of gillnet mesh (one panel each of 2.5-, 3.8-, 5.1-, 6.3-, 7.6-, 10.1-, and 12.7-centimeter mesh, stretched measure) joined end-to-end. One seine haul was made at night at station 1 on transects I, IV, and VI during each sampling period. The seine haul was accomplished by anchoring one end of the net on the beach, setting the remainder of the net by boat in a semicircle extending from the beach out into the lake and back to the beach, and then pulling the entire net onto the beach. One gillnet was set overnight, perpendicular to the shoreline at stations 3 and 4 on transects I, IV, and VI. All fish collected in seines and gillnets were identified, weighed to the nearest gram, and measured to the nearest millimeter. The fish sampling was designed to indicate the changes in the abundance of the major commercial, sport, and forage fish species throughout the study area that might have occurred as a result of the beach nourishment activities. Fish catch data were compared among transects. Til. RESULTS 1. Beach Face Profile. Aerial photographs of the shoreline in the vicinity of the Lexington Harbor (Figs. 3 to 5) show that the beach face profile changed markedly during the study. On 16 June 1980 the beach face in area A (accretion area) was lo- cated about 15 meters lakeward of the west end of the harbor's north breakwater (Fig. 3); the beach in this area, as measured to the tree line, was about 90 meters wide. In areas B and C the beach face was located within 15 meters of the tree line except at the north end of area B where the maximum width of the beach was about 30 meters. Several groins, piers, and docks, some extending 15 meters or more into the lake beyond the beach face, were visible in areas B and C. 15 On 3 December 1980, 2 months after nourishment the beach face in area A was located at the base of the harbor's north breakwater, about 30 meters land- ward of the position occupied on 16 June 1980 (Figs. 3 and 4). The beach face in areas B and C (nourished beach) on 3 December 1980, however, was located about 15 to 45 meters lakeward of the position occupied on 16 June 1980, which resulted in the groins, piers, and docks being behind (landward of) the beach face (Fig. 4). On 6 December 1981, 14 months after nourishment, the beach face in area A was located at the west end of the harbor's north breakwater, about 30 meters lakeward of the position occupied on 16 June 1980 and about 45 meters lakeward of the position occupied on 3 December 1980 (Figs 3, 4, and 5). The width of the beach on 6 December 1981, as measured to the tree line was about 120 meters. At the northern end of area B the beach face was located about 15 meters lakeward of the position occupied on 3 December 1980, while at the southern end of area B the beach face retreated landward about 7 meters. In some parts of area C the beach face was located about 30 meters landward of the position occupied on 3 December 1980. 2. Substrate. The 144 Ponar grab samples collected in June, July, and October 1980 and 1981, together with observations of the substrate (in situ) made from the ves-— gel deck and with an underwater television camera, revealed that the substrate in the study area ranged from silty clay to large boulders (App. A). The sub- strate on all transects was generally cobble mixed with coarse sand and fine gravel at stations 1 and 2, and was mostly cobble with isolated pockets of sand and fine sand at stations 3 and 4. The one exception occurred on transect III at stations 2 and 3 where inspection of the sediment samples, as they were removed from the grab, revealed the presence of pockets of silty clay ona predominantly cobble bottom. Boulders as large as 2.5 meters in diameter were distributed irregularly throughout the study area. A remotely operated under- water television camera was used to obtain permanent videotape records of the substrate at each station to describe the composition of the substrate com- ponents that were too large to sample effectively with the~Ponar grab. However, sea conditions, low water clarity, and equipment failure prevented the comple- tion of the required videotape recordings. Grab sample size varied widely throughout the study reflecting mainly the effectiveness of the Ponar grab on the different substrates encountered, However, the samples obtained provided an adequate representation of the fine gravel-very fine sand component of the substrate in the areas sampled (App. A). The fine and medium sand fractions collectively accounted for 79 to 85 percent of the total (by weight) in each of the sampling periods during both years, the very fine sand fraction accounted for 11 to 14 percent, and coarse sand and fine gravel together accounted for 1 to 10 percent (Table 1). Friedman's test was used to determine if there were significant (P = 0.05) differences in particle-size distribution of the sand-gravel component of the substrate at station 1 in all six transects (Table 2) and at stations 1 to 4 combined among all six transects (Table 3) within each of the six sampling periods. No significant differences were found. 16 Table 1. Percentage composition by weight of the fine gravel-very fine sand substrate fractions in Ponar grab samples. ——$—$<—$<—————— EEE Pine Coarse Medium Fine Very fine eand Sampling period gravel sand sand sand (8.0-2.0mm) (2.0-0.5mm) (0.5-0.25mm) (0.25-0.125mm) (0.125-0.062mm) 1980 9 June 1.8 4.0 29.7 53.4 VW. 21 July 4.9 407 25.0 $3.7 1407 14 October 1.9 302 20.0 63.5 1104 1981, 10 June 2.7, 3.3 21.6 61.8 10.6 14 July 0.4 0.9 18.8 66.6 13.3 8 October 0.8 167 1726 65.8 1401 Table 2. Results of Friedman's test comparing particle-size distribution among grab samples taken at station 1 on transects I to VI. Degrees Minimum level Sampling of of date freedon x2 Significance 1980 9 June 5 4.383 0.50 21 July 5 1.419 0.95 14 October 5)" 2.103 0.90 on : 10 June 5 0.336 0.999 14 July j 5 3.813 0.75 8 October 5 0.621 0.99 Table 3. Results of Friedman's test comparing particle-size distribution among grab samples taken at stations 1 to 4 combined on transects I to VI. Degrees Minimum level Sampling of of date freedom — x2 Significance 1980 9 June ~ 5 1.989 0.90 21 July 5 3.471 0.75 14 October 5 1.875 0.90 1981 10 June 5 1.562 0.95 14 July 5 3.813 0.75 8 October 5 4.497 0.50 3. Water Quality. Water temperature was relatively constant throughout the study area within each sampling period in both years (App. B). Temperatures ranged from 10.0°to 21.0° Celsius in 1980, and from 10.9° to 23.8° Celsius in 1981. In both years the highest temperature was recorded in July and the lowest in October. Generally the water temperature was slightly higher at stations 1 and 2 than at stations 3 and 4, and was also slightly higher at the surface than at the bottom. Dissolved oxygen (DO) remained at or near 100 percent saturation at all stations throughout the study (App. B). Concentrations of DO ranged from 9.4 to 13.2 milligrams per liter in July and June 1980, respectively, and from 8.4 to 12.9 milligrams per liter in July and June 1981, respectively. Through- out the study suspended particulate matter (SPM) was highest at station 1 and decreased with distance from shore; SPM ranged from 1.2 to 133.6 milligrams per liter in July 1980 and from 1.7 to 145.0 milligrams per liter in June and October 1981, respectively (App. B). At stations 3 and 4 SPM was usually higher at the bottom than at the surface. Throughout the study, turbidity was usually higher at stations 1 and 2 than at stations 3 and 4; turbidity ranged from 1.1 to 81.0 nelphalometric turbidity units (NTU) in July 1980 and from 0.6 to 70.5 NTU in June to October 1981, respectively (App. B). Turbidity values were also similar on all transects within each sampling period. The single exception occurred on 21 July 1980, when turbidity values were low on transect I and high on transects II through VI (App. B). A similar situation is apparently documented in an aerial photograph of the harbor area taken on 23 July 1980 (Fig. 2). 4. Macrozoobenthos. More than 29,600 organisms representing 40 taxa were identified from the 432 benthos samples taken throughout the study (Table 4; App. C). The most abundant organisms were Oligochaeta (worms) and Chironomidae (midge larvae) which made up 71 and 21 percent, respectively, of the total by number; 17 other taxa made up 2.0 to 0.1 percent of the total and the remaining 21 taxa contributed less than 0.1 percent each. The densities of oligochaetes at all transects and for all sampling periods were usually lowest at station 1 and highest at either station 3 or 4 (Table 5). One major exception to this trend occurred at transect III, station 2,in October 1980 when the density of oligochaetes reached 10,137 per square meter, greatly exceeding that at stations 3 and 4. Densities in 1981 were often higher than in 1980 at many transects and stations, and the densities at transect I, station 4, in October 1981 and transect III, station 3,in July and October 1981 were the highest measured during the study. The high density at transect I, a reference transect, is unexplained. The consistently high densities of oligochaetes at transect III in both 1980 and 1981 may reflect the presence of an eddy current just south of the harbor which appeared to cause silty clay to accumulate, thus providing a more suitable substrate than is available elsewhere throughout the study area for colonization by oligochaetes. The densities of chironomids at all transects for all sampling periods were usually the lowest at station 1 (Table 6). Densities at stations 2 to 4, 18 collected by Ponar grab. Rhabdocoela Tricladida Nematoda Hirudinea Oligochaeta Manayunkia speciosa Ostracoda Gammarus Pontoporeia hoyi Hyalella azteca Argulus Chironomidae Ceratopogonidae Empididae Tipulidae Caenis Hexagenia Stenonema Elmidae Pet Composition <0.1 <0.1 Polycentropus Leptoceridae Mystacides Ceraclea Hydroptila Molanna Cheumatopsyche Unidentified Trichoptera Corixidae Plecoptera Acarina Ancylidae Lymnaea Physa Gyraulus Amnicola Unidentified Gastropoda Pisidium Unidentified Sphaeriidae 19 Pet Composition <0.1 Taxonomic composition and relative abundance of macrozoobenthos Table 5. Density of oligochaetes (average number per square meter). 1980 1981 Transect Station June July October June July October I 1 te) 7 7 is} 34 0 2 14 510 152 7 131 41 3 114 2,583 69 34 599 145 4 1,205 937 2,920 5,916 592 18,174 Il 1 te) 48 7 te) 7 14 2 14 76 69 i) 48 7 3 875 276 820 fe) 544 96 4 117 331 303 103 1,398 1,047 Til 1 7 90 152 21 179 28 2 117 496 10,137 262 1,577 2,707 3 1,929 3,078 778 3,416 33,393 10,860 4 331 331 282 303 1,846 792 Iv 1 14 ie) 14 7 310 7 2 179 482 200 62 90 21 3 1,343 110 992 523 833 48 4 131 1,054 186 277 ~+5,061 771 Vv 1 te) (0) 28 14 138 te} 2 14 55 21 14 te) te) 3 138 468 517 14 117 69 4 1,129 1,095 799 537 1,832 4,759 vI 1 34 14 7 fe) 117 0 2 0 186 34 fe) 110 14 3 220 172 647 193 392 48 4 792 1,260 730 351 2,492 992 Table 6. Density of chironomids (average number per square meter). 1980 1981 Transect Station June July October June July October I 1 7 69 ie) 21 90 14 2 55 881 110 4) 41 34 3 196 523 14 337 117 76 4 627 282 489 2,438 131 1,315 Ir 1 21 62 te) 48 62 te) 2 55 399 145 207 269 227 3 634 186 96 193 200 275 4 324 344 48 110 365 227 III 1 14 110 21 55 158 vi 2 303 158 558 1,136 344 496 3 613 2,679 200 1,522 1,054 503 4 413 427 34 379 303 1,033 Iv 1 90 103 21 131 138 62 2 399 448 83 165 90 76 3 2,472 179 262 337 282 165 4 344 943 76 530 1,591 152 Vv 1 i) 14 7 145 275 21 2 131 110 55 41 90 14 3 186 172 213 90 200 110 4 200 344 152 358 393 386 vi 1 41 207 i) 179 110 ce) 2 145 69 7 48 i10 55 3 131 179 117 117 365 165 4 1,853 296 124 854 613 379 20 however, varied considerably among transects and sampling periods without any pattern. The densities of chironomids generally averaged higher at stations 2 and 3 on transect III than elsewhere probably because of an accumulation of silty clay there which provided a more suitable substrate for colonization by chironomids. Generally the densities of chironomids in June and July were higher than in October at nearly all stations in both years. Of the 38 other taxa represented in the samples, Ostracoda, Rhabdocoela, Nematoda, Caenis, Pontoporeia hoyi, Acarina, Corixidae, and Pisidium were found frequently; collectively, they made up 5.7 percent of the total macrozoobenthos (Table 4). Index values (C A) obtained by applying Morisita's test of community simi- larity to the data (Table 7) indicate that the macrozoobenthos communities at station 1 in transects I to VI in 1980 differed in 9 of 18 comparisons from the communities present on these same stations in 1981. At stations 2 to 4, however, the index values indicate that the macrozoobenthos communities in 1980 were either similar or very similar to those in 1981 in 51 of 54 comparisons. 5. Fish. Almost 12,100 fish representing 31 species were caught in 36 gillnet sets and 18 beach seine hauls during the study (Table 8; Apps. D and E). Gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) were 52.7 percent of the combined total catch and spottail shiners (Notropis hudsonius), alewives (Alosa pseudoharengus), and troutperch (Percopsis omiscomaycus) were about 10 to 13 percent each of the total; four species contributed about 1 to 7 percent each and the remaining 23 species made up less than 1 percent each. With the exception of the gizzard shad which was taken in large numbers only in 1980, the species that dominated the catch in 1980 were also the most abundant ones taken in 1981. The list of species caught in 1981 differed little from that for 1980; only a few of the least abundant species were added to or lost from the list in 1981. More fish were caught in both types of gear in 1980 than in 1981 (Table 8). The smaller gillnet catch in 1981 resulted almost entirely from a decrease in the catch at transects I and VI, the reference transects (Table 9). The smaller seine catch in 1981 was due to much lower catches in July and November 1981 than in the corresponding periods in 1980; these decreases in July and November offset the increase over 1980 levels that occurred in the catch in June 1981 on transects IV and VI. The low catch in July 1981 appears to have resulted from a general reduction in the abundance of almost all species (App. E), whereas the low catch in November 1981 reflects only a sharp reduction in the abundance of gizzard shad (Table 10). IV. DISCUSSION 1. Beach Face Profile. Changes in the beach face profile that are evident in Figures 3, 4, and 5 reflect the Corps’ beach nourishment activities in October 1980, which included the removal of beach sediment from area A, the deposition of that sediment in area B, and the deposition in area C of sediment from a land borrow site; they also reflect the littoral drift of beach sediment during the period of study. 21 Table 7. Morisita's index values (C\) showing the degree of similarity of the macrozoobenthos community by station, between sampling periods. ! June 1980 July 1980 October 1980 vs vs vs Transect Station June 1981 July 1981 October 1981 i 1 0.444 0.799 0.000 2 0.981 57/1 @ 0.969 3 0.901 0.978 0.919 4 0.985 0.988 0.989 BAL 1 0.223 0.844 0.632 2 0.838 0.996 0.895 3 0.574 0.899 0.426 4 0.892 0.795 0.994 IOI AE 1 0,728 0.973 0.948 2 0.976 0.994 0.987 3 0.990 0.733 0.966 4 0.984 0.720 0.557 IV 1 0.956 0.290 0.228 2 0.967 0.995 0.602 3 0.960 0.768 0.511 4 0.985 0.904 0.971 Vv 1 0.000 0.457 0.213 2 0.823 0.843 0.463 3 0.791 0.768 0.777 4 0.804 0.988 0.990 VI 4 0.559 0.690 0.000 2 0.871 0.903 0.411 3 0.982 0.987 0.962 4 0.964 0.988 0.961 1 values of CA below 0.500 indicate communities are dissimilar, values of 0.500-0.749 indicate communities are similar, and values of 0.750-0.999 indicate communities are highly similar. 22 0°00L 960°! zZOe’t 8SS’8 0S6 98z"t yoReOD TeIOL z°0 Zz 9 ot (Ome 0 Tpateq 803305 uTdq{nos pet OW Ss°0 £9 L fe) €€ 62 WNezAZTA UMdSARTA UOTPAaRSOZTAS skOTTeM SPL L8L S LL ts t6 SUSOSSARTI POTEG yosed MOTTOR L°0 9 fy) 9 0 0 Tpaeunyus PUTOIed ZORALP ASATY [L°O) 6 0 6 (0) (0) sepordeo euiTozed yozedboty L°0> L Q l 0 0 uMabTu euozsoeyusa zezzep Auuyor L°0> Zz L 0) L 0 Stazsednz sez ttdotquy sseqrpod Sac SOE a L6z (0) (0) aeQoezeWIeD SAUQUOTUTYY aoep asoubuoT L°O> Zz (6) 2 0. fo) Sejoword selEeydeuta MOoUUTU peel ed $°Q> G z 0 (0) 0 snqeaou seTEeycouvtd MOUUTU esoUuqLN Ta Pel LLL Le PPL 0 (0) sneutueiz3s stdo1zi0Nn ZeuTus pues LEZEN ves’ tL Sst ZSL Ost LUE sntuospny STdoz20N ZeuTys [Teq ods Ler G6 L92Z 8tz 0 0 ‘Seppoutszeyye StTdor30N zeuTys pTereud L°O> L {@) (0) L 0 ; °ds eulojRsoxoW eszoyupez petytTqueptun S°0 8S € 9 Sc vc TuUOSsZSEuNMIOD SNuodzSoO}zeD Zeyons aAtum L°o 9 L S (0) (0) otdzeo snutadip dzep L°0> L ) 0 L 0 yoansty snyouAurzoyougq uowTes oyoD L°O z8 0 c o€ OS ysnoAeueu SNUTTEATES Qnozy eNeyt L°Q> L 0 Q ce} L e33niQq outes Qnoz3 usMCAg L°Q> Z 0 c (0) (0) TZaupazted ouyzes ano2zq MoqutTey v°O vv ce 6 z L eyoszAmeys3 snyoudyi0ou0 uoujes xyooutyo L°0> l 0 (0) L (0) wuneoerput TA umtdosozg UYUSTJOARTUN plnoy L°0> L Oo» L (0) (o) suetuunz5 stjcutpozTdy worp ZaeRZeEMyselzg 0°o1 607’t BLE LL9 zs 89L snofeuodostuo stsdeorzeq yorzed3norzL L°O> € 0 0 c L BIOT BROT JFoqang L°O> € (0) (0) L z sn3e390und snan{tezoL uSTJIe9 TeuueyD L°0> L 0) C 0) L SETSU SNANTeIOL PesuT Taq yxOeTa 8°0 S6 vl 09 At ? Xepzow snzewso 3TeUs moqutTrYy L°%S LLE’9 be 9re'9 l 0 umuetpedes exosoz0d peys prezzT9 Bena Lip bee 9S ZSS S9S snbuszeyopnesd esotw es IMT L°0> L (e) fo) (0) L susd.SeATNgZ Aesued tow uoebamnys exetT youeo TeIOR FO 39d setveds t86t osét tg6l os6t Sweu OTzZTQUeTOS oueu uoWWoDd e se Te 303 Aq [eICL euTes yore 2eUTTTO satoeds *uSTJ JO sOUepUNGe SsATRZeETSEZ pue uOTATSOdWUOD sstToedS °g eTqeL ds °8 STQEL 23 Table 9. Gillnet catches for all species combined. 1980 Total 1981 Total Transect June July Oct 1980 June July Oct 1981 i 271 173 30 474 103 83 23 209 IV 231 96 31 358 277 43 15 335 VI 286 145 23 454 309 81 16 406 Total 788 414 84 1,286 689 207 54 950 Table 10. Beach seine catches for all species combined. 1980 Total 1981 Total Transect June July Oct 1980 June July Nov 1981 I 380 322 2,6721 3,374 339 10 25 374 Iv 322 402 8742 1,598 422 13 17 452 VI 95 325 3,1663 3,586 416 40 20 476 Total 797 1,049 6,712 8,558 Arle 63 62 1,302 lIncludes 2,656 gizzard shad. 2Includes 554 gizzard shad. 3Includes 3,136 gizzard shad. 24 The prevailing littoral currents and littoral drift of beach sediment through- out the study area are north to south (U.S. Army Engineer District, Detroit, 1980). This prevailing drift is reflected in the accretion of beach sediment on the north sides of groins and other shoreline structures, including the harbor's north breakwater, which interrupt the drift (Figs. 2 to 5). An excep- tion to the prevailing north to south drift apparently occurs immediately south of the harbor, where the accretion of beach sediment on the south side of groins and similar structures suggests that an eddy current causes the prevail- ing drift to move from south to north along the shoreline in areas B and C (Figs. 2 to 5). The beach face profile on 16 June 1980 represents the condition which existed before the Corps performed its beach nourishment activities. The accre- tion of beach sediment in area A and the apparent erosion of beach sediment in areas B and C (Fig. 3) are consistent with the conclusion (U.S. Army Engineer District, Detroit, 1980) that the installation of the harbor contributed to erosion of the shoreline south of the harbor by interrupting the littoral drift of beach sediment. The removal of about 19,000 cubic meters of beach sediment from area A, the deposition of that sediment in area B, and the deposition in area C of about 35,000 cubic meters of sediment from a nearby land borrow site by the Corps in October 1980 caused changes in the beach face profile that are reflected in aerial photographs taken on 3 December 1980 (Fig. 4). Among the major changes that occurred were a retreat landward of the beach face in area A and an advance lakeward of the beach face profile in areas B and C (Fig. 4) from the position occupied on 16 June 1980 (Fig. 3). These changes, caused by the nourishment activities, were relatively short-lived in area A, but were more persistent in areas B and C (Fig. 5). On 6 December 1981 (Fig. 5) the beach face in area A occupied a position lakeward of that observed on 16 June 1980 (Fig. 3) before the removal of beach sediment occurred there in October 1980. In areas B and C, the beach face on 6 December 1981 had retreated land- ward from the position occupied on 3: December 1980, but had not yet returned to that occupied on 16 June 1980. The minor lakeward extension of the beach face at the northern end of area B, which occurred between 3 December 1980 and 6 December 1981, is consistent with the hypothesis that an eddy current exists in areas B and C. 2. Substrate. The results of tests to determine if there was significant variation in particle-size distribution at station 1 among all six transects (the station most likely to be affected by beach nourishment) and for stations 1 to 4 com- bined among all six transects indicated that there were no significant (P s 0.05) differences in distribution during any of the six sampling periods, either before or after the beach nourishment activities. These results indi- cate that the beach nourishment project did not alter the composition or the relative distribution of various particle sizes within the sediments in the nearshore area near Lexington Harbor. 3. Water Quality. The water temperatures in both years were typical of the location and season and the DO concentrations never approached levels that could be 25 considered critical to the benthic fauna. Although the SPM and turbidity values obtained were generally high and varied widely between the nearshore and offshore stations, there was little variation between the surface and bottom at any given station, probably because of the wind-induced vertical mixing which occurred immediately prior to and during nearly all sampling periods. Turbidity values for 21 July 1980 (App. B) and the turbidity plume visible in Figure 2 collectively suggest that the harbor breakwaters may increase tur- bidity in the vicinity of the harbor, by causing the resuspension of beach sediment, when littoral currents exceed some miminum velocity. 4. Macrozoobenthos. The composition of the macrozoobenthos in the study area is similar to that recorded by Teter (1960), McKim (1962), and Schuytema and Powers (1966) in samples taken from the nearshore waters of Lake Huron. The macrozoobenthos communities were compared before, immediately after, and 1 year after beach nourishment by using Morisita's index value of community similarity calculated for each station. The index values (Table 7) indicate that the macrozoobenthos communities at station 1 in 1980 differed in 9 of 18 comparisons from the communities present at station 1 in 1981. At stations 2 to 4, however, the index values indicated that the macrozoobenthos communities in 1980 were similar or highly similar in 51 of 54 comparisons to the macrozoo- benthos communities present in 1981. The dissimilarity among the benthos com- munities at station 1 occurred at the reference transects I and VI, as well as at transects II, III, IV, and V, which were with the area most likely to be affected by beach nourishment. Also the variability in density estimates for oligochaetes and chironomids at transect III, stations 2 and 3, is in part reflective of the highly variable substrate found here. It is concluded there- fore that the beach nourishment activities were not responsible for this dissimilarity. A more likely explanation is that the unstable substrate at station 1 on all transects caused the macrozoobenthos to occur there in such low densities that the communities present were often dissimilar. 5. Fish. Gillnet and seine catches made during the present study indicate that the fish community in the vicinity of the Lexington Harbor is typical of that in the nearshore waters of lower Lake Huron. Lists of species taken before and after beach nourishment activities were conducted differed little and the species that dominated the catch in 1980 were also the most abundant species in 1981. The major exception was the gizzard shad which was taken in very large numbers only in October'1980, immediately after beach nourishment was accomplished, and was virtually absent from the catch at other times. The sporadic appearance of large numbers of gizzard shad in the nearshore waters of the Great Lakes in the fall, (Edsall and Yocom, 1972; Caroots, 1976; Goodyear, 1978; Werner and Manny, 1979) appears typical of the species. Thus the large catch made in October 1980 is probably unrelated to the beach nourishment activities earlier in the month. The virtual absence of gizzard shad from the catches in November 1981 may reflect the tendency for the species to be more abundant in the nearshore waters in October than in November, as reported by Caroots (1976). 26 Although the total catch in 1980 was larger than in 1981, due mainly to the large catch of gizzard shad, there were also decreases from 1980 to 1981 in the catch of other species. However, a comparison of the catches of these other species on transect IV, which was located in the area most likely to be affected by the beach nourishment activity, with catches made on transects I and VI, the reference transects (Tables 9 and 10), revealed no adverse changes that could be attributed to the beach nourishment activities. Gillnet catches at transect IV in the nourishment area in July and October 1980 were smaller than in July and November 1981, and catches at transects I and VI in the con- trol areas also showed similar trends. The larger seine catch at transect IV in June 1981 than in June 1980 also indicates that the beach nourishment acti- vity did not have an effect on the distribution of fish in the study area (Table 10). The seine catch was lower at transect IV in July and November 1981 than in July and October 1980, but similar declines were evident at transects [I and VI. These results indicate that the beach nourishment activity had no adverse effect on the distribution and abundance of fish near the Lexington Harbor throughout the period of study. Ve CONCLUSION The results of this study indicate that the Corps' beach nourishment project conducted in October 1980 at the Lexington Harbor had no major adverse impact on substrate particle-size distribution, water quality, macrozoobenthos, or fish in the study area. Marked changes in the beach face profile occurred in the immediate vicinity of the harbor as a result of the nourishment activity; however, the only obvious change that persisted until the completion of this study about 14 months later was a moderate lakeward extension of the beach face in the area immediately south of the harbor. Ol LITERATURE CITED BUCKHANAN, J.B., “Measurement of the Physical and Chemical Environment- Sediments," Methods for the Study of Marine Benthos. N.A. Holme and A.D. McIntyre, eds., IBP Handbook No. 16. 1971. CAROOTS, M.S., "A Study of the Gizzard Shad, Dorosoma cepedianum (LeSueur), from Lake Erie near Cleveland, Ohio," unpublished M.S. Thesis, John Carroll University, Cleveland, Ohio, 1976. COURTENAY, W.R., Jre, et ale, “Ecological Monitoring of Beach Erosion Control Projects, Broward County, Florida, and Adjacent Areas," TM 41, U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, Vae, Feb. 1974. CRONIN, L.E., GUNTER, G., and HOPKINS, S.H., "Effects of Engineering Activities on Coastal Ecology," Report to the Office of the Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C., 1971. CULTER, J.Ke, and MAHADEVAN, S., "Long-term Effects of Beach Nourishment on the Benthic Fauna of Panama City Beach, Florida," MR 82-2, U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, Va., Jan. 1982. EDSALL, TeAe, and YOCOM, T.G. “Review of Recent Technical Information Concerning the Adverse Effects of Once-Through Cooling on Lake Michigan," U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Great Lakes Fishery Laboratory, Ann Arbor, Mich., 1972. GOODYEAR, C.D., “Evaluation of 316(b) Demonstration: Detroit Edison's Monroe Power Plant," U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Great Lakes Fishery Laboratory, Ann Arbor, Mich., 1978. HORN, H.S., “Measurement of Overlap in Comparative Ecological Studies," American Naturalist, Vol. 100, 1966, pp. 419-424. MARSH, G.A., et al., “Environmental Assessment of Nearshore Borrow Areas in Broward County, Florida," Final Report, Joint FAU-FIU Center for Environ- mental and Urban Problems, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., 1978. MARSH, G.A., et al., "Ecological Evaluation of a Beach Nourishment Project at Hallandale (Broward County), Florida," Vol. II, Evaluation of Benthic Communities Adjacent to a Restored Beach, Hallandale (Broward County), Florida, MR 80-1 (II), U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, Va., Mar. 1980. McKIM, J.M., "The Inshore Benthos of Michigan Waters of Southwestern Lake Huron," M.S. Thesis, School of Natural Resources, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich., 1962. PARR, T., DIENER, D., and LACY, S., “Effects of Beach Replenishment on the Nearshore Sand Fauna at Imperial Beach, California," MR 78-4, U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, Va.e, Dec. 1978. 28 SCHUYTEMA, G.S., and POWERS, R.E., "The Distribution of Benthic Fauna in Lake Huron," Publication No. 15, Great Lakes Research Division, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich., 1966, pp. 155-163. TETER, H.E., "The Bottom Fauna of Lake Huron," Transactions of the American Fishery Society, Vol. 89, No. 2, 1960, pp. 193-197. U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, DETROIT, “Expanded Reconnaissance Report on Shore Damage at Lexington Harbor, Michigan." Detroit, Mich., Apr. 1980. WERNER, M.T., and MANNY, B.A., "Fish Distribution and Limnological Conditions Under Ice Cover in Anchor Bay, Lake St. Clair, 1979," Administrative Report No. 80-1, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Great Lakes Fishery Laboratory, Ann Arbor, Mich., 1979. ZAR, J.H., Biostatistical Analysis, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, Mowe p deere 29 wht Oe aa aii on gaunt ah ies oe. ey Ya eoree aed Re ; . ft bari’ 4 henna oni Belinea wy inet ne PILE Bonen lege wane. kby wy ‘ety ‘op WEES a Pi ee ae Cie i : eet . oth + eek ENR Gd WARN yi Kl AER arte id ce aie “ i his - el ¥ wid f ™ ‘ ¥ F i y¥ ¥, A t ye 5 ‘ oe a 1) Co a Sea) SPe abd ve . ( 4 and aA a , rr 44 Oy nD A i FR 6 Ne ; iy 4 i} i i ee i ¥ : N ui f oe ti a om ae Di a Lee Worrast” { ‘ime ce QA AN 9 ARE aR ee a RLS TY ely ial a in ae AS ; 4 ffi Sa wae Ae LPR ¥ ‘ , “uo { a 4. i ove { F ty 4 F j er ery ein. a iy ahd: hide. a) ae : \ ASW + dry ang f 4 cee ge i hia x : r MS LISP A F be a : Tm we Te, A Seal Sie ere ctr Bune toh] eae er ies 2 ee aw Retire, Mee eS Dy weaker Lon tevin belie a \ ? ) " } ¢ Bree eA i Y' H at. 2 ie ala “ie OK hart ahehe ou u 1 Peiein we ples i a _ hd Fee’ 2 Ms oc . ; Gedy (Falah s iy 224 eT ant iy’) + ahieg B48 hee Ae hein cenety ne: ht it " ; : -_ oe Wh a / aX Ca AN APPENDIX A PARTICLE-SIZE DISTRIBUTION DATA 31 FRACTION WEIGHT (GY) BY UeSe STANDARD SIEVE SERTES NC. DATE TRANSECT STATION 10 35 60 120 220 6/ 9/80- I 1 USU 29-0 264.2 663.8 14.9 2 1.2 0.6 8.2 288.9 50.2 3 2.7 2.6 Orr 2 Ty 2G ON ely 2alvepl 4 72.3 54.6 4C.2 225.5 264.4 I] 1 1.6 12.5 393.6 462.9 3.5 2 4.9 1.0 NEG ABoe 59.8 3 0.2 2.5 26-1 408.9 .194.% 4 0.1 3.1 30.5 109.5 13.3 Ii 1 1.8 3.6 357.1 98.2 0.8 2 NAG 4 Bio MES O2250) 40.7 3 0.1 0.7 3-4 373-5 126.8 4 23.0 22-3 115-2 1972-4 118.1 Vv ny 12.0 26.0 658.0 583.9 14.6 2 21 7.9 Wae?t 34722 93.5 3 1.8 19.5 38.4 354.8 161.1 4 11.5 83.2 499.3 363.3 17.3 Vv 1 1.4 2-1 184.9 447.1 8.6 2 1.5 28-7 430.3 915.3 54.2 3 0.7 23.35 164-4 443.8 7122 OD 0.8 4.7 43-2 346-1 136.2 VI 1 0.2 1.3 5-9 108.0 3.9 2 0.1 1.8 28.5 468.3 39.6 3 87.5 185.9 969.5 181-0 23.2 4 24-5 139-0 453.0 146.0 24.4% 7/21/80 1 1 430.9 160-2 188.4 1426 1.9 2 24.6 29.3 12.4 23-2 4.6 3 0.1 1.0 527 437-2 240.0 4 2.4 58.0 111-4 59.9 81.9 If 1 To2 9-6 195-0 525-3 31.4 2 0.1 1.2 30.0 490.4 80.0 3 0.3 6.3 €6.5 1112.0 146.8 4 1.3 7.8 73.6 246.3 59.4 Ii! 1 1.1 32-3 8386.2 69.4% 3.9 2 0.9 65) US l Be Bez 44.9 3 4-5 19.2 41-6 258.6 50.2 4 24.6 152-4 419.8 284.5 35.9 IV 1 93.4 14.5 664.7 316.9 6.0 2 0.3 6.5 89.1 830.5 181.0 3 1.4 15-1 69-4 42067 154.1 4 49.4 44.8 72.9 23.9 9.4% NV 1 0.7 8.7 407.3 84522 30.9 2 1.8 37.2 183.1 783.7 58.3 3 3.5 9.8 64.1 667-7 115-4 4 1.0 10.8 102.4 624.4 156.3 VI 1 21.6 56-0 417-5 553.3 4.7 2 0.0 0.7 21-7 172.7 28.0 3 1.5 7.3 95.4% .555-8 161.6 4 326 2320.8 132.2 274.5 345.21 ew ere oe ee hw wm nn a = oo enone eee een ene oe wow enn eee ewe 32 FRACTICN WEIGHT (G) BY U.S. STANOAROD SIEVE SEKLES NO. DATE TRANSECT STATION 10 35 60 120 230 “10/14/80 I 1 63.9 16.9 198.0 266.5 12.7 2. 0.0 0.6 36.3 444.0 49.3 3 17.0 16.3 34.0 364.8 61.7 4 CAGE NG OG) ES o ls eo ts) AGS IJ 1 1.5 WN GLADE IAsTlS 6.6 2 13.3 4el 18.3 634.9 104.4% 3 0.3 2420 136.2 459.0 D6 9) 4 4.4% 28.6 370-8 482.6 43.2 TI! 1 4.6 12.6 225.2 503.8 12.3 2 1.0 13.2 107.1 232.1 27.8 3 0.8 5.8 22.1 6820.5 1908.7 4 129.1 73-8 248.6 85.9 6.1 Iv 1 9.1 2.3 33.2 107.1 4.0 2 0.0 1.0 732.6 619.8 69.1 3 0.2 1.7 6.2 271.3 142.) 4 16.0 28.7 22-8 181-0 148.8 Vv 1 0.9 WES NISsU O27oN 34.0 2 0.4% 7.0 49.8 598.7 78.1 3 0.0 4.7 85.0 127.2 26.3 4 2-0 7.0 69.0 146.3 16.4 VI 1 0.1 0.8 CoU 2 Wie! 11.5 2 0.1 1.1 T1505 464.6 23.9 3 3.9 22.0 147.2 384.1 173.5 4 3.3 6.5 97-9 182.8 11.2 6/10/81 I 1 O.1 0-8 47.9 234.2 6.3 2 0.0 0.2 26-7 485.5 35-2 3 O.1 0.1 1.2 20.2 3.0 4 2.8 8.5 47-3 119.6 28.5 II 1 47.0 58.7 298.3 422.0 16.0 2 3.1 2-0 12.2 2590.8 57.8 3 0.0 0.4 7-9 269.6 5he2 4 0.0 0.1 0.5 ee 2.1 IT! 1 0.2 3.3 485.7 699.0 4.3 2 0.0 0.1 0.8 26.8 2.4 3 1.6 5.3 21-6 246.2 147.6 4 0.0 0.1 0.6 122.5 12.3 Iv 1 1.9 4.1 422.7 342.9 4.9 2 6.0 40.4 81.8 368.3 131.7 3 0.2 5.0 18.2 196.6 181.1 4 0.1 0.9 3.3 50.0 55.2 Vv 1 2.9 11.7 328.9 451.7 37.0 2 0.0 1.3 198.9 652.6 14.4 3 0.1 3.5 44.5 652.3 87.3 4 1.1 11.3 49.2 285.1 162.4 Vi 1 349.2 282.3 294.3 180.8 1.5 2 0.1 2.1 45-8 617.2 43.3 3 0.1 1.0 24.6 2785.2 67.7 4 0.3 11-0 247.8 230.0 66.2 Se) FRACTION WEIGHT (G) BY U.S. STANDARD STEVE SERIES NO. DATE TRANSECT STATION 10 35 60 120 230 7/14/81 ] 1 Ooi oh NioS) BOAsI . 2352 2 OAN Oss B50 T4265) B50 3 0.1 Tse @bBo9" 2OsS > BOs 4 0.4 Aah NESS CIGEG Nae It 1 LZ ald OOo AOlOO NVA 2 Onn 20) ASN WOBc2 3.0 3 On 0.3 ioe MSsB NBEGLO 4 36. 2loS WUBleR 2aa,2 “Gs 11 1 0.4 To ENOC2 NEGA DoO 2 0.9 358 Doh BOo2 WAGs! 3 OGD Ash! BGoO — 43668 “RE6aF 4 7.9 An Dba? G2bse BBoO IV 1 0.3 BoD "BAG NOY — at 2 NBS NOLS 227as WVIOSe) NGos an Woh | NEG: WWOAS. CSOgR *Oile2 4 0.9 6.2 B38) 29586) 38409 Vv 1 0.3 52) IOOng 22609. Sas) 2 0.1 LoS UATeS GOBol rode 3 0.1 0.6 Ja WILDBWoh Maar 4 Bo B58) | GR6e B0G63) 1SS46R VI 1 5.5 B58 | Bok NONE 5.0 2 1.0 Bo) PUPoO ABAa5T N59 3 0.5 locie ULAR. Q276G. Moses 4 3.5 Hed 2685 We2es) 1 aaee 10/ 8/81 I 1 1.5 B55 FOoh BOG? Wor 2 0.0 Ro) NSoD Sds0g NBsc2 3 7.0 320 As Blob. “Oio7 4 Woe ‘Yo || GOs RES “LAsoG I] te AGES 9 ORVS5S) NWS “S8OCO | N59 2 0.8 oO! Ula O2942 Axon 3 0.1 0.3 ye Le2s5 Norse 4 N5S Whos) Boo) B2G63 Gaol IIT 1 Toe MSS BOSS ASRS 2ao> 2 Ooi 0.8 31.8 511.2 &7.9 3 Doe Bod» Oboes NAT6O = 2OO>2 4 Do | NOs? Plo) Asa WANs IV 1 NSO Piso GA2e” Bayos 3.5 2 ea Bos) 12060 Zod S460 3 0.3 DoG Blow M2058 76S 4 0.0 0.4 WS Doh Bee Vv 1 0-1 D0) BAO NLOG.H ~ P2o8 2 0.2 Bag NePoO WNBice Geos 3 0.1 AG BGa5. 68059. 7659 4 1.6 To) B60) 2259 9 LBG6E VI 1 Zo TAO PiBow GEICO 8.0 2 Ont Weel 1SOs2 elses eatin 3 0.2 Bey Boh, OO WSO64 4 Mb NTSB MeERo® WaeO “MWRoR 34 APPENDIX B WATER QUALITY DATA 35 SUSVENTED DISSOLVED PARTICULATE OXYGEN TEMPERATURE MATIOR TURBIDITY (PPM) (C) (MG/L) (NTU'S) DATE TRANSECT STATION SURFACE BOTTOM SURFACE BOTTOM SURFACE BOTTOM SURFACE LOTT CM 6/12/80 I 1 12.2 eee IL 14.5 Hee HA T.8O EME HKH rire | Hm 2 12.5 12.6 13.0 12.5 6.50 5.70 2.3 3.1 3 12.4 12.6 11.0 11.0 4.00 4.30 758) 2.0 4 12.3 12.6 11.0 11.0 3-40 2.60 1.6 1.4 I! 1 1218 te 14.0 4K 8.20 S4K4HE TAG HEL 2 12.6 12.8 12.0 12.0 4.80 4.40 2.2 2.2 3 12.6 12.7 11-5 11.5 3.30 3.90 2-2 2.0 4 12.3 12.4 11.2 11.0 3.30 2-90 1.7 1.4 Il! l 13.0 ia dbaed 13.0 ase? 6.40 HHH HEK 5.3 ° *enR 2 12.7 12.7 12.0 12.0 4.00 3.20 1.9 1.4 3 12.4 12.7 11.6 11.2 4.50 3.90 2.8 2.1 4 12.4 12.5 Ws 11.0 2-80 2.20 1.2 4.8 IV 1 13.2 MX Hole 13.2 KOR RO 9.90 ¥eEeEE 5-2 RINK 2 12.6 12.7 i1.8 11.9 3.30 2.50 1.6 1.6 3 205 12.5 11.2 11.2 2-50 2-70 Mot 1.7 4 12-4 12.5 ll. 11.0 2.80 3.30 1.8 1.6 Vv 1 12.6 Heh Xe 13.5 HEN 11.30 *#e aoe Oo RUSH 2 12.6 12.7 12.3 12.2 4.20 4.60 2.2 2.5 3 12.4 12.4 11.8 11.9 4.00 3.60 1.8 1.9 4 12.3 12.4 11.3 11.2 4.10 3.60 1.9 2.2 VI l 12.2 WKH 13.8 RED Uo, Ferree! 6.9 waLe 2 12.6 12.6 V2.1 12.1 4.40 5.60 2.8 2508 3 12.4 12.4 11.9 11.8 4.00 3.50 2.3 Qos) 4 12.3 12.4 11.7 11.6 2.80 3.80 2.2 2.2 7/21/80 ] 1 9.9 pial 18.8 RK K 4.80 KH HEHH 1.8 RUS 2 10.4% Woy 18.2 Liles 1.79 1.30 1.1 Nott 3 10.5 10.6 15.3 15.0 1.60 4.40 1.2 1.& 4 10.9 10.9 16.8 16.2 2.10 2-60 1.4 1.4 I! 1 9.9 ba 19.2 Sees a 66.00 "xt HK 54.5 ba 2 10.0 9.8 18.2 18.2 26-40 25-50 VWrvrey5) 1€.0 3 10.5 10.4 17.4% 16.9 4240 5.20 2.1 1.9 4 10.7 10.6 16.2 16.2 3.00 4.10 1.6 1.4 It 1 9.7 be a 18.8 KL EH 24.80 8m EHS 20.0 wee e 2 9.6 9.6 WSier2 17.6 13.60 13.60 12.0 11.5 3 10.1 9.9 16.8 16.6 S.2C 15.80 5.5 8.4 4 10.2 10.1 17.0 NBS ©) 7.90 35 UO) 4.6 1-4 IV 1 10.2 Kee 19.2 HH HH 29.00 RKRER EK 13.3 wate 2 9.9 9.9 18.0 17.8 €.80 8.40 6.0 4.7 3 9.9 G.6 17.2 NTS) 9.20 11.00 5.7 49 4 10.1 9.8 17.2 16.8 4.40 4.19 1.9 22 oY l 9.4 wee 20.0 Xe 133-60 %**%%% €1.0 B44 H 72 9.9 9.9 18.2 18.1 13.20 11.50 6.8 6.3 3 10.0 9 17.1 Letien) 2-90 8.30 1.9 2.4 4 10.2 10.0 16.7 16.7 3.00 2.90 1.4 1.6 vi 1 9.4 HM 21.0 Hom 42.50 %*HM AOE Ne)G S} REL 2 9.4 96% 20.0 19.5 17.20 20.00 18.8 21.5 3 9.8 9.8 19.0 18.9 16.00 8.80 5-6 5.4 4 9.6 9.8 19.2 16.6 2-90 4.40 1.3 1.2 1/ * Indicates that no sample was tahen. 36 TEMPERATURE (Cc) SURFACE &OTTOM SUSPENDED PARTICULATE TURP IOITY CWT SURFACE res) SCT TCX. 13.0 DISSOLVED OXYGEN (PPI) DATE TRANSECT STATION SURFACE SOTTOM 10/20/60 I 1 11.0 Bats 2 11.0 10.9 3 11.0 10.8 4 10.8 10.8 11 1 11.0 EaRarh te 2 11.1 11.0 3 11.0 1).0 4 11.0 1.1 TI! 1 11.0 ete 2 11.0 11.0 3 10.9 11.0 4 10.9 11.0 Iv 1 10.9 HH 2 11.0 11.0 3 10.9 11.0 4 10.8 11.0 v 1 10.8 week 2 11.1 11.0 3 11.0 11.0 4 10.9 10.8 V1 1 10.9 RW Te 2 11.0 10.9 3 11.0 11.0 4 10.8 10.8 6/15/81 I 1 12.3 ee 2 12.8 12.8 3 12.9 12.7 4 12.6 12.7 I! 1 12.7 eae 2 12.2 V2iev2 3 12-0 12.2 4 11.9 12.0 {11 1 12.2 wees 2 11.8 12.1 3 11.9 12.2 4 11.9 11.9 Iv 1 12.0 wees 2 11.6 11.8 3 11.8 12.0 4 11.8 12.1 Vv 1 12.1 be 2 1L.7 11.8 3 11.7 11.9 4 11.8 12.0 VI 1 11.3 aK K 2 11.6 11.6 3 11-5 11.7 4 11.5 11.9 37 MATTER (MG/L) SURFACE &OTTOM 1-90 «Km H 6.50 10.20 6.80 12.00 6-200 13.00 10.00 *xoxHH 11.60 26280 7.80 8.20 11.00 32.60 8.20 ver HaT 9.00 31.00 10.40 11-40 5220 &.40 8.70 *uEUSS 8.80 11.29 14.40 12.20 8.60 9.60 10.40 *4x aX 12.20 25-40 13.60 17.00 6.80 8.20 9.20 KR H 10.00 10.40 6.09 10.00 18.40 7.80 11.40 ¥*¥%aHR 2-60 2.60 2.70 3.10 3.00 2.90 6.60 KKK 2.90 4.10 3.10 4.40 1.70 2-90 5.00 ee Ree 6.00 6.70 4.10 6.40 2.00 Nits fo 10.90 «7% eae 3.30 4.170 3.90 3.70 4.30 4.10 6.30 #KREE 3.70 4.10 3.90 4.60 3.00 4.10 12.90 *4#Kame 5.10 6.00 1.70 4.10 4.40 4.10 SUSPENDED bISSOLVED PARTICULATE OXYGEN TEMPERATURE MAITER TURBIDITY (PPM) (C) (MG/L) (NTU'S) DATE TRANSECT STATION SURFACE BOTIGM SURFACE BOTTOM SURFACE GOTTGM SURFACE BOTTOM 7/15/81 I 1 10.8 BAEC 22.3 Re. 44090 KAUEEKE ToS teyr 2 10.9 10.2 27.0 21.2 32.00 34.10 3.1 BY 9) 3 10.8 B.A 22-0 Anas} Ser )0) 33.40 1.6 4.9 4 Mle: S718 22.0 21.3 30.10 35.10 1.4 4.4 Tl 1 Wile? HERE 22.8 YN 43.40 *%H HKG Boe 4 he 2 oles) 10.8 21.9 269) 30.40 34.60 1.9 Qo 3 11.6 10.9 22.0 21.5 31.10 33.60 1.2 2.0 4 11.4 11.3 21.9 21-2 28.70 38.70 Te 3.7 III i 10.6 He 23.8 Mm Ke 52.20 eee KEK 8.3 BKM 2 S72 11.8 22.2 21.5 33.90 32.40 Sel 5.3 3 10.6 10.7 22.0 21.2 34.40 56.00 3.6 10.2 4 11.4 11.4 21.9 NAA 32.40 54.00 1.1 4.2 IV 1 11-0 HR H 23.0 Hm te Ac 49-60 4K HH 5.8 dad 2 10.9 1 ieee} 22.1 21.9 28.40 46.80 1.7 1.9 3 11l.l 11.2 22.0 21.5 27.60 50.40 1.5 1.8 4 11.3 11.4 21.9 21.1 32-30 46.80 1.2 2.7 Vv 1 11-6 Fete 22.8 be 63.80 *HL Kae 14.0 HERE 2 11.2 11.5 22.0 22.0 31.00 42.20 1.3 2-4 3 11.2 11.4 22.0 2ha¥) 31.30 40.40 1.4 No9) 4 11.3 11.4 21.9 21.2 28.10 48-20 0.9 4.2 VI 1 11.4 EY he 23.0 HOH I 51.20 he 2.3 Ke Ke 2 11.4% 11.6 2222 22.0 28.30 428.00 2.4 3.1 3) 11.2 11.4 22.0 22.0 33.90 43.80 2.1 2.5 4 11.2 11.8 21.8 21.0 31.39 30.00 1.4 2015) 1C/ 8/81 1 1 Oe) baal 11.4 aiid WAS eo) CA air ttc 56.5 eeEe 2 10.6 10.4 11.4 11.5 417.60 53-20 27.5 29.5 3 10.2 10.2 11.5 11.5 12.C9 20.00 8.6 ven, 4 10.2 10.4 11.5 11.5 16.30 16.30 8e7 9.0 TI 1 11.0 Ket ee Wks 72 Ree em 55.70 Hoe 31.0 Heke 2 10.2 10.4 11.5 11.5 28.30 23.70 15.7 N3i9 3 10.1 10.4 11.9 11.5 19.3C 43.30 1462 Oot 4 9.8 10.4 11.9 11e1 145.00 42.10 10.3 21.7 It 1 10.5 tee 11.0 MeN. 39-30 ERK & 22-5 RH 2 10-1 10.3 11.0 10.9 35.00 35.00 24.5 23.0 3 9.9 9.8 10.9 10.9 26.30 63-70 LoS 35.0 4 9.6 9.6 11.5 WEG 21.900 17.00 Wo V1.4 Iv 1 10.5 bladed 11.2 % he te BW SiON ees x xix 40.5 wut 2 9.7 9.8 11-2 11.2 45.00 56-00 24.0 20D 3 9.9 10.1 11.5 Niles 32.00 17.30 16.9 16.2 4 9-8 10.2 12.0 11.5 16.70 28-00 10.5 17.7 -V 1 10.6 +H uH 11.5 Ho mK 95.30 8% ReHR 50.0 eH aR 2 10.0 10.0 11.5 11.5 42.70 37.00 25.0 17.7 3 10.3 10.5 11.5 11.5 35.00 95.30 17.7 40.5 4 10.0 10.3 12.0 11.5 15.00 35.00 11.4 21.5 VI 1 10.6 HH 11.5 HH He 95.70 EHH 70.5 Hye 2 10.0 10.2 11.5 11.2 23-20 48.30 20.2 23.4 3 10.0 10.4 11.5 WSS ANG EO) WINS BO) 2.9 51.0 4 9-9 10.3 11.5 11.5 10.70 20.00 8.2 15-6 38 APPENDIX C MACROZOOBENTHOS DATA eye) SInIvd vVaOOJVHLSO VIOJINWY VIN39VX3H SNINVYAD AVOIXIYOD WOLOLSTd V13VHION110 BVO WONOUIHD % 0 0 SINIVI te) WOLOIST? te) I 3VOIxX1 vO) I 9 SNUVWHVO BVAINONOUING l€ Ag vlivild09110 € SNANVYAD fe) z VXOAH 2 SPV is) via4119091 10 1 BVOLWCNOHIND S 3JVOLX1YOd t 1A WOIOIStd VOCIYWIN 12 T @ (0) SNEVA 902 Lt 8 ” Jvolwo ag 10) SINIVI 1 Oo VNIUVIY af (0) 3vOlxi vod 2 2 SNUViAdVd € S V13vH309! 10 AVON GHOMIND € ViIVIdvOL IO AVOI RONG VW 2) ie} 1 AVOLXIWGD 1 A JVOIX1¥Od 1) 0 $11333C te) ie) SINIv2 to) a 0 Yd AH ag 9 z 9 "3 S30] 9V1SAW VLAVNOCOrI0 3JVOIWONGHIHD 5 WBZINIS VIVAIVA VIISICC tu 3VO!ej901u37 vo3272V V112 WAH VOI NHY Viluvoy WOLOISId VOULYHIN SINIVS YOCSVVLSO VL3Vi1959110 JVOTHCKGUIHD € Lo) 4 SMUT ARVO Lo) ra voodveiso 3v0I1 x1 yo) VLlavitid09119 3YCIWONOWIHD 2 CO“CDOONHNOO PRrOHRRODOH “4 = 99 Ot TZU. Oot ee) a a COL enna ne et OOOOnO 6LI hi G €t O6f st iW OF 3Y0!xX1 109 YLSVNDOS1 0 BVCTeCKOWLHD 1 A SinnOd Uvud v NOLLVIS JISASNTUL L T QO ie) Tee L oT Te el” Lx e2 Y *uowe, Bem eTdumes ou 4eLQ srrPoTeNr 6 /T SNUVwhYd VLIVHICIOI IO SVOIWCACHIHD ” L ie} io) I L Q te) af od te) a te) L Ct) ie) T 1 te) Q 2 a ag I 1°) 12 2 fe) 1 82 to) 0 ” oe ” ie) af Git) £2 Se lo B26t CW AWG Lot VOIOVIVDIUL SNe WHTO = 3VOlLX1uOd veaa VOOLVW3IN SNSCYLN3IDAIOd SINIVD $209125 yoodv41S0 BVOIWO.ONIHD VLAVYHICS: IC € vacdvd1S0 VYOAH SIN3VD 3voly)] vod VOQIVAAN vlavH19c91 10 BYCIHCKOYIHD 2 YL2vH9C9110 JVOIXT NCD BVOIWC ONIN qT mt! VI2L7V V1I3 WAN VL3VHINS! 10 BVOIWCNOYIHS ° YON 34d. SC avO1yY1099 VOOLIASN 2VCLHCLOUIBD VLAVHIGIL 70 € 3v0183901d31 YLAVHICG91 10 BYONYT4C YNIGVOV DVIQIWTNOMEND 3 L 0 0 18 L ie) T ie} L 0 1 1) 12 1 af T 82 1) £ 1 LUT 2 S ot £0¢€ ot 91 6 L fe} a to) ot af 1 te) ot 0 1 \ ie) T 1 af oT 0 2 0 “iy I €l € 42 8 oz ot L 0 0 T L ) a4 9 L te) T 9 L 1) te) T "£9 6s 6 4? Sle SL 82 "2 L 1 0 to) ot 2 ie) te) tT 2 QO 0 bt 2G ie} 0 SS S 9 ¢ zt ie} ie) af 12 ie} 1 z L te) 1 0 L te) ie} a4 L fe) io} 1 te) ag £ SHDASdOLY A 3V4 VI3ICICCAVIY VNIEVOV 3YOIXxTYOd Ol ager | te) 12 wena 0 2 oul bear > L W'OS/ SINNOD OVHO "ON NYVOW VOCITYLSO 3VO1xX}yOd VLIV'N9S91 10 BVOIWONGUIHD £ 1 Q9/01/9 RCKVL SCIAVES LIZShvdL Jus 40 HT YOO!NNaN 1 4 T 0 aUTOlSId WY te) @ sn SS ie € VIZOZCS IVY € 4 Z 1 @) ie) s20013S 2 T (0) fe) Y1S0I008VHY ‘ Oren Oe et SNEVHWVS L © § -o voalZy VI73q¥ AH =1 1 0 1 WNTOISId L 1 0 0 nlarstd at ag Q 1 yocovylso L 1 0 9 yee dtse 29 Zi eee eAS 3VOIXTYD L Oo © ACs I NGY ths £9 ct z2 ZVOIWENCEIHD UG 2 0 T 399C9EYSY soot § oe "us © 69 #LSVEO09I 10 > 12 ? 8 - © SENS ~--2-------------- = -- 2-2 = - = == 2-2 2 eee enn oo 2 & © 8B Eh BVOINCNOISD L 0 t 0 3YCIX1NQD SL2 Lt ct TT YISVASCOF 10 € a 0 0 2 yI202cCaVEY a ee Yt Zz 6 S YISVHIO51 10 db T vocivwisa SHV WATS 9 (o} oll 2 8 9 3VOLWCNCYLHD € L 9 1 - 0 es a 0} 9 on en nn nn rn rn rns L y ce} LyVwes ie) z wa) Atk Wiis ayeeah 73 V9 66€ 8 8 et BYOLKONCSIHD z 1 (e Q VIOO!NWY +1 ) 0) I WAIOISId ; OL 3 0) é T a 4 9 ) ¥12070 Zagat 3ygiKeMDM id L 0) ) if VADTEVOY uf Lt YL3V4YD091 10 2 So L f°) G 3 VL3VH209170 RSS Ee Se Se ae ee RS ee ae 29 € € £ BVOIWONOUIHOD q 1 v c q fo) V2NICAYIH Se a ET aa tt oe a a 1 (0) YNI Sues L v3 ot 6 £ € BVOIWONCHI T AY L ee ow wn ww wn we ww = = ww ww wr ww = = nr nr renner 4T c i @) VISCOCIGVHY +1 t @ 0 POCAV WIN Te 1 0 t SNUV WWD 8> @) € BVC1KT 49: Vaacocounny ~FNHAOHOO t 12 0 0 3YOIx1¥09 5S ; VNIOISI¢ TEE 22 Be fl yL3VHOC9I 10 282 oT 1 92 BVOIWCNOYTHD L2 Wit. 922-88 3YUIHONCNIND 4 Lee €2 5€ 62 VlavHOCOII > L ) e 0 $115220 L 1 0 0 VIZCICCETHY t t 0 0 YOOLYRIN B i 9 0 VGCOVNLSO B : 9 a) YUOAH L 0 t 0 VENTCANI i a) Q 1 3YO1XIYOS L 0 T C VGOLWA2R 32 0 Z z y1Z0)CONVHY +l 1 ) I SAMY HV ey S 0 i wOIGISId g2 l 2 i 3ve1X1 yo) 08 0 Gy © VINIONUIN €25 S292 oL2 AVOINCAGY!HD 1 EY @ é vacdrulse zes2 tL 402 OO VI3VHIC9! 10 € }b 1 92 OSl 36 lel 3V0! WONOYIHD ------------------------------~------------------- ok Ol Ngeene's ©) (eens) 0) WL3SVHICIT IO € L fe) T WSO3CCavHyY 0 JVI1X1] vO VISVHIII! 9 rrr nn L ie) T 0 NOT S lid L 1 9 ) VIZCICIOYHY L 0 Q 1 51 ‘ 1 9 INT UYOY L 0 1 ) $51 : + 8 BVO) SCNOMIHD L C I ) 86 ho 52 V13VH9C91 10 2 L 1 0 n) ~--------- = += 2-2 === 2-222 2 o-oo enon e 1 € 0 0 € 1 91 Sana US ne D BVOT HON, efile z ) 0 te) q H 2 fy b) Wid 2C0GVHY wenn cnn nnn nn nnn en en = 2 2 2 = 2-2-2 = © c l ra \ OB/TC/L 69 (0) é € NOY rey pete . wor drat BAVO WeOS/ SiLsAOS “ON NYG at (0) 9 q SAYYNWYS VI3SL7¥ ¥133 WAH z ROICISId 9 = GIAO ORS SOS el aU at LAVHDCO1 IO 9 ra i (0) i¢) SAInoyy Z te) (0) T VOILZV VIZ IV AH 36 T 8 S SVOTWCAGS O28 72 L2 SIS) Vi3vHon91 710 € A t) 1 io) snyy L @ i ie) Vio Sue Vee ag 8 T SENwOueT g) Sot 4 Ul G0 30! KONOSIND 2 us iB ie) T VISVHOSIT 49 Z } 0 T VO3SL7V V¥113 YAH % tl YOCLVNIN SNORUS Gils siy SHIN29 VIGOT Ny WINSSYX3H VIacacaegvay nNIQISId VCCIVYLSO 684 6T 1G, 82 SVOQIWCACYIND C282 60T 402 UII VL3VHIO9T 10 4 2 T é q se “9 69 SL WNN4AODOM TAIAMADIBAO NW AAHOanH4O vAso2CCevHY VSAUd YNLYVIV 1 2 q oT 1 q 3VO]WONOUIHGD eit SAT HWYD 69 6 V13VHI991 10 € eo000000 aA AtONO0CO T YS AHd T VNIUVOV 1 3¥01¥390).d31 1 SNIAVYAD £ 3VOIWCACYIHS » V13VHICII 10 2 Pa ie} 0 1 VLIVHIO91! 10 T I NAOOOVO > 120 ONES: NOXVI NOTLYIS JORSNYS 2 3140 O8/45T/01 vt t¢) T T voodvyiso YE fe) 2 q VOULTRIN ee T (0) € WATOISTd o€ ie 2 T sre ae 69 @ % 4 VIZCSCCUVH 942 van’ St oh Seaiaenaeits O92eT 94 9L 19 VLISVHICD; 10 a Z 0 te) T 3VOIX! yo z QO if 0 VIRGIGIG VEY & T iG fe) S50Gi5S 1 c T SAE AAT ot VLSVHICST IS SLI 9 zt g SVGIWCNOSIHD 3 L Q te) T WNIOISId Z 0 I ce) aS L ie) 0 Tt V3NIGAS! 69 0 ¥ ¢) MOE NCAENRIND 981 € Sl 6 VLSI DAN IA c 1 te) T le) Se kates tess é QO T 0 SVCIX1 UCD 91 1 T ie) VI3VHICI1i 10 LO02 ton S st 3VOITWChOMIHD T IA od. 0 io) T VOCIVYLSO 12 € 0 0 AIVGRNTY OD, SS fe) € Ss SAEVANYS eh) @ 9 rd WTSCOCISVHY Fe a GR +1 02 AVCINCS.OVTHD S601 1s OS 8S VLIVYHIC9I TO bd L QO T 0 VOCLVW3N VI300CG8VHY 3VO1xXI yO 1 SNUV NAY eLt 8 8 6 SVOINCNGMIYS 89% Te a7 Br VISVHOCOL 19 3 L 0 0 q Vascocoevyy Tz 1 (e) @ SNUV HAYS SS 9 T T VL3VHIC91 10 oh ” ZL S SVOQIWCAOUIHD @ “1 z 0 0 OLWCNOMIHD ir G T 0 SVITXLeS \ A CS/te/ J°0S/ SINfFOD QvYO NOX NOREVAS SLD SESNWSEe 314 “OM ONY DW 42 SIN3ZVI ON XS () Oost O re p= tH Ne) cv {] T 0 (o) 5 SNINVDAD 2 G (e) I WOIOQISId oi t 0) T waivd ue, 3 0 S WAH oS, € t T SoVRY eae 5 g v Sits. SG 7. TT eee ae} € VI31Z2¥ Vis. 0) SNOT eNeuCnS z ] Viiveidadt 1d é & 0 G t SSGGNS WIS 5 Z G 6 i SNeynnvd “Al T 9 T WOIUISId 261 OT S Z 3VGIWONONIHD 662 Cp UO ce VL3VHSCOT 10 7 C a at t i is) VO WAH 7G w ie} o xOH cg 2 9) Sid V13VHI09110 9 @ Sie v9 ” @ 3VYOIWONSUIHD 2 z e) i} T SVOTWONGYIHD “ ie) 3 T SVOIIIdn3 32 2 c G VISVHSIDT 1 if A O3/71/0l 71 fe) 2 0) SN¢OVLNIDAIOd ol oT T fo} SVCIWCNOBLHD 981 22 Ss (0) Vi3Vii909! 10 ” Z 1 VOOLY WSN L L 14 82 CN, ol 266 89 64% le VLISVHICSI 10 e L T ie) 0 VOIOVIIIYL L 6 u SAdCtiNSIAIOd L QO T nNIGISId z fo} 0 VOSL72V V1I3 1) AH c x 9 NUH O SASIWAYS et 3VGinCNOeIHD wort OTD0O AAO 41 SMa an t3 4 BVETWONCSIHS 002 ST 6 ct Vi3SVRIG5T 10 z +1 le) te) S V13ViHHI0I1 10 Te e) z T 3VOTWKCNOYIHD T Al i ° } T VOOIVINSN vas T ag 0 VO3L2V VVIZIVAH o¢ (0) ra € SVOInNINGST HD 1” (0) i) 9 nolodrsid 282 @ 6T 02 VisVHDOST 10 4 oT 0 T T SNUVAWYS le 0 Z t V13C3Cd3dVHY 002 ¢ oT (on BVGINCNOYMIHD SLL 62 £9 Te VLISVHDC9I 19 G Z T V1509008VHY VINSOVNSA TdIsid VICIINGY SNdOYINSIAIOd VOCIVYLSC OA VOCLVhSN 66S O€ £ T BVO] CANCYIHD LZETOt WS 894 (C4 Vi3VnI9C91 10 c L it ie) 10) BVGITADAV We 0 2 a SVOLNCNGSIHD 2st il il (e) VISVH5S9!10 T Suu é aT ol ADOOCODOHO MAOMrt HOO 10) ie) 0 ie) z 0 8 O8/ST/01 Nv 3a S37 S250 Gg Viu9. NOXVL NOTLVIS LISSNVUL 31va W°OS/ SINNOJ BVUd NOXVL ACTIVAIS LISSNWUL 31¥0 °ON NV3A 43 vi to) q 1 YACIUSINSY, = VV30TSCE 4 Od nt eet we oO 7S gts 1 GlIVeLsS Lzz Wt Sl vLavHoCd! 10 oes 2G ON 9 ONERIND » @) arate 0 VOSLZV VV Wax SVOIX! vad VALUE OY VOOLVASN ws NHOnOO y NNN OMO eae) CORA HOODOnO Mee 1 Viivy ; af BVCIWONESIHD 9 VOINCICde Ly y39 VOSLZV YUIS IWAN rrite OrnoOomano0 = r4DOMDADOO 4 2VOT Wo Orr DIN Day “11 OD DN Tne = wey () = an £ sez fo) SOSVRNVD yaCoyvy1soO WOCLW AGN VALSTO¥ ° A T to} SUSIE) ag S gt VASCSCIETHY STN3V) Whgveasorqg AOOAHODOI NY MINN ABOOM 2 g ras 9 Pao) CHOSTHD 4 L (0) 0 1 VOI QUGIUSNS l te) @ T WSoau x c WLIW Flo) 10 L 9 (0) T SVOIX1 GD €2 ” fe) QO LACH ere Cl Nod £0t S € é eee Ott ” S L YOIKENON! + L > uel fo) 0 VISCICISVHY oT iC fe) fe) 3VCIX13O9 1r4 0 e) € SENAY £61 9) rant ont BVOIKCNOVIND iS Z qT fe) 0 YSCAW L Q a i 0 Wate SABER 12 2 T (0) SINSY 102 L €T OT AVC KENOYTHD z UG t 0 2 VYOAR 84 c io) S SVALTWNONOSTHD 93T 6 9. et StNavd T i Z c 9 t Vil v dh fe) 9 i Spy c aT T 0 T YOO! N Ud (0) € fo} VAI Es x Cll > 2 Ot TAOH Wi3tcdc d ath S 9 € WHIOISId 266 OG. WOR 2 VICIVYLSI ef2 SL 222 Ls BYCTNCNOMTYD 9165 SE SEZ £12 VLSTHISOI 10 > 0 aoa P1CLSt¢ VO3LZV Y113 INAH SyvOIX1 YC YAOQH WI320¢01N0d $113930 VI3YHI08! 19 VOCIVNLSC BVOINENOUIND € L 0 Q 1 yocovvlsa L 0 0 1 HAGE lo 2 1 € 3VOi KCNOBIKD 2 “1 0 2 0 SIN3VO z 9 2 1 WOAH INES THD x 1 STOTNAOAHHO MHOODOANDOOA v Tor OOn O00 mow SIS Met Aye NET Aes REISE BRA YO 44 L T 0 te) VSANd a1 es 0 ie} YOCLYWIN oY (o} c ie} TENCHIBW Ie SG GE Noic L Cc 0 v VADUY OY +T z 9 fe) SVOEYUUOD L 0 to} a VOILZV vIqdATAY te z 5 I VIZOICCUvHY oe Lee See =F Be € e 1 = NES) "I © Yu. aan WES o¢ % a) 1 WIICISId 2 4 fe) 0 ROLOISTd Si z Q ie} YOOIVYLSO 9E to) 2 € vouIvutsa Soe coe z 3VOIWCNOSIND ae : Sees coma @ HID ¢ 6 NAV Fees ee aed wie oe ea ee mi Oo OG ved al VHI9917 2 ii a 6 3¥O1X1¥09 SH 6 aN te SVCINCROUIND y1 c t 1 TACH VISYOdoLNGY Gaz 9 OT at SVYOQTWONIYTHD 45 s¢ cl ce YLIVUSCOI 19 € 9 1 EN a A aa eee aon ae ee ee 0 () @ > j t) i) wy S 0 $ VLEVROGOT AG 0 0 IJACH ¥I3¥CdO1NCd ose it Li It 2VOIWONOSIHD ra LI 6 » > AVOLWCNOYIHD -----------------------------+-------- ------------- £61 62-2 1 VLBVRICI! 20 € L Q 1 0 YLAVHIONL 10 ESS IESG BS SISSIES oosocacse Z 9 1 (0) AY ob 0 q fe) TACH VIZECECINC i Cama BYOIX1Y99 toe . een! ol 0 i i a *aIHSCDI 302 ieee be Se ie D928 GIES SBA SPIRO ORS ATEASSSGSS DOSS L 0 c 1 vnc 2ceus4y Z ie) l 9 TACH Vist vodOlLNOd t 9 (0) 1 VISIVMLSO ib t 0 0) youovulso +1 0 to} 2 YLIVeD Ra 12 U i 1 VNOAH ol 0 9 Z WES) ez ohm cure 20 WAL MV OV eee eas ices sE Z © (0) Vi2VHICOT TO bE 2 2 1 SIs3aVv2 C$ S ” Y BVO!lWONCYIHD 1 ] TO/¥ T/L Sot € to) at 3VO!WOKOMIHD if A 1e/e /9 SIENA S2 eye NOXVL NOJIVIS LdISNYUL 3:0 W°OS/ SINNOD OVD NOXYL NODLV ADIASNYML sinc "ON NV3iW 45 L 1 G ie) TAQH VI3tCuSiNOd T2 0 £ fo} WwolulSsid Wy () i S VISO03CCEVHY 6S € z € VGCLVh3KN 6S 0} 4 ” BVO! aT803 69 0 3 2 VND SY O¥ act 6 ot U) yartdvs1so LOSE “GY - 8S" OD BVIINCAOST HD Z9CS = EET 7h 68ST VLsvxHiS091 19 ” 6 te) 7 0 VoasloG Dred L (0) 0 46 YU11gOs0 AH L ) 1 0) $114930 L 0 if r) TAGH V15*Cd0LNOd d ie} T 0 S30!9ViS AW a 0 1 1 VCOLVWIN L 0 1 ) VII d0sd Ad & a i rd VOcoVYLSo a. i fe) (7) StN3YO +E 1 Vee V1303CUuVHY a 0) 1 T VAT ev2 of 1 0 > WOTOISId ve 1 t v ‘ So be 0 0 ‘Sees Whlov3v TZ) T q t SOGUVAY 84 c 9 S SVCIXILCD MAN Son i Star ae eis aie Be SYO;wOAG ETH BS ere gpl OS ch Seg ¢ aco, 4 GS BO YigVEICOT 19 € Bi ee 6492 a SS Se Se eine oes SSeS SSS Sars eee eee i ” L 0 =) 3 v1s02CG8vHY eee SSeS eS A, te) 0 1 VALYYOV L fo) T o} v 1ICIOCEVHY L 0 ag (0) VO3LZ¥ V1I3 1VAH L if to) ) 3vo1%xi 809 06 z ” L W13¥H3091 70 L T Q i) WHlITSId 05 S 9 z 3VOITHCNQYIHD 2 1 B) e) id i P) f) CLY WSN fy 0 G 1 use Z i ) 3 S WOnOsir Zz (0) 10) al VLSWAIG9 € L 1 3) e} VGCOVYLSS E wort n anne nn ---- L 0 i) 1 BHOIAS dOLYNWNSHD 5 L 0 c a TAGH V13e9¢OLNCd L 1°) rv) l $113330 L (o} c 1 AVCT x1 40d val 1 I) 1 VNIYVOV ort 2 3 9 Vi3VHI09! 70 12 0) 0) € SIN3¥9 ott % i S ZVOTWONUGINI mae: 4e (0) Ro) s SHEVA D ioe ee a Sel 5 0 oT BVOinchOBT9 OVERS Woz 12 ° 8 YCCIYNSK MEEVOV ole Se S ST VL2VHICS 70 T AL VOGiVAIN == END io 1 fo) t) YWSNIGQYIH OeiHD 32 T T 2 YNLGVOV 09119 1 IA ca Co} ) Ss 3v01Xiu¥Cd See Soe ee ora maaan anne nnn =n 84 ” i 2 LACH ¥13tCdO1NOd é G ( 1 YNI ovo¥ SS S ) € V13CIOUSVHY on I 5) ° ava 11809 €0¢ GB I 2 ) ) ITAQH VI3%OcCiNOd Ss ee Sa ee eee L22 st 8 oT 3JVGIWONOMIHD z no) T c 3vdI Woll a 0) I 3 SNTOVBAD Z 0) if fe) BHOAS dOLYWN3HD : t e 3VOIYSISIcs1 oT if 1 0 Vi3SVHSO9I 10 T lt 0 a T Ssne AE a CR EIE SE RE LG aI EOE BE Ree en te eS ee o 2 o a ) 0 1 voaL2¥ V1131VAH 1 I 0 un L I fe) h) VGCIVWEN 9 1 i VORi72V VIG 1A a7 I 0) af VROTINNY, ; i 2 Pee eee vt fo) 0 z. TAOH Vi2UCGCINGd ose ee ARAN BION 12 T 1 1 SIN3V9 5 2 7 oE 2 T 2 VNLSVOV G 4 0 29 1 2 9 WOLGISId z a q JET 2u- © % VISCI008VHY foe Oot OES Ce 8 LE . NVOCSVe1sy aol” — we Ba ie SUSY = O) ve Lb 3VOINGNOYIHD SRS tele ete a cae VLIBT 97281 892 Los YLBVHOCD1 710 9 L a %) 3 Sins FERS Me ah a aaa TRA a a ai at i i 3 J & fe) 1 h) SOD NAY ° t 2 A 8) T ) WAIGESTd : ‘ i 3 LE 1 0) fo) SIN3VO = . % oT ) 0 2 TAQH VIIYOdOLNAd Gey 3 5 } OL 6 I 2 BVOINCNOSTAD 2? é 2 0) sl Tl S S VL3Vri5591 13 € SIT OS g 6 cos oY ak aM o BY Hie oan Hos € Sena ESR 2 C is n) IAQH VIS%CdO1NOe L (0 1 () WALIIS1a 1 RT 18/S /01 Sra z 0 (0) SVGiWONONTHS 5 i T3AS 701 NOliviS Ld5 env jlva SINGUD UVS9 NON 8 I NDUBLVELS e293 ISiN Vio SLC 47 YWINONSLS YNISVOY TAQH YISYOdSLNOd VINZIYXIH SIN3V9 viacocanvuy §$143929 wv a QANAMANAAO 4 ttOODD9OC NtelHtOrNWOADDIOSO (che rOTGiSiId ve VOCLEASN OS * v33aizy¥ 96 + i i GE Sf. ST 2VATWORCY VIAVHICI1L 19 ra 9 if (0) TACH VI3UCcDLNCd é. 0 9 T VSAHd dl, 9 0) if VNIUVOV val T 0 T TLIVHOCII 10 SS + fe) % JYCTNONOUIRD v v &, t a) te) Sauy 2 T 1A & fo} WUC AY VS EZN Vinal smlNeASS Silsas VANICOYIH VI30ICCEVHY WNLYVOYV VOU + a MONONA HHO ANAHODOHRAO INNOORIDOCOer See T t & SAGES esa Hiea) EGSLY, SS ec 6 VSS Soi ng 7 ie) T 9 VNTSNOV VAS 0 S Zz TAQH WIESECCCLAGA ” % z VL2VHICII 10 9 L a 2VOQIWCNOYIHD 1EdULNAG c ra 0 1 IVAPWONC ID CO ASS NGale IS heI3) ACNWL Cals q A URLS /OT OVA SS = LUIS ISR aAvG 48 APPENDIX D FISH DATA (GILLNET) 49 TOTAL LENGTH TOTAL WEIGHT RANGE CATE TRANSECT STATION SPECTES no. (G) (MM) 6/10/80 I 3 ALEWIFE 30 1225 162-202 2UnCO0T 1 1390 512 TROUT PEXCH 21 245 108-122 LAKE TROUT 1 4050 705 WHITE SUCKER 6 3690 300-4588 SPOTTAIL SHINER 47 550. 100-127 YELLOW PERCH ) 1140 203-324 4 ALEWIFE 94% 3730 146-208 RAINGUA SMELT 1 12 187 TROUT PERCH 14 145 106-125 CHINOOK SALMON 1 500 388 LAKE TROUT 1 2650 652 WHITE SUCKER 1 900 446 SPOTTAIL SHINER 36 375 102-129 YELLOW PERCH 12 1613 158-344 Iv 3 ALEWIFE TAL 2762 153-195 TROUT PERCH 19 250 106-125 LAKE TROUT 3 5950 603-865 WHITE SUCKER 3 1700 275-448 SPOTTAIL SHINER 40 455 100-123 WALLEYE 6 3075 345-392 4 ALEWIFE 22 954 160-227 RAINBOW SMELT 2 25 135-156 TROUT PERCH 28 310 101-127 SPOTTAIL SHINER 30 365 101-127 YELLOW PERCH 6 450 146-230 WALLEYVE 1 1250 497 vi 3 ALEWIFE 48 2317 162-218 TROUT PERCH 4T 667 106-142 WHITE SUCKER 1 1150 471 SPOTTAIL SHINER 124 1560 102-125 YELLOW PERCH 1 72 197 WALLEYE 4 1700 324-376 4 LAKE STURGEON 1 600 468 ALEWIFE 24 1114 155-205 RAINBOW SMELT 1 28 166 TROUT PERCH 12 148 105-128 WHITE SUCKER 1 1050 460 SPOTTAIL SHINER 19 263 103-126 YELLOW PERCH 1 600 343 WALLEYE 2 1525 405-426 7/23/80 I 3 ALEWIFE 102 3358 113-205 TROUT PERCH 15 190 107-127 WHITE SUCKER 2 1530 377-482 SPOTTAIL SHINER 4 158 108-119 YELLOW PERCH 3 549 228-267 WALLEYE 1 920 493 4 ALEWIFE 2 925 153-195 8 TROUT PERCH 2 30 113-122 WHITE SUCKER 2 770 266-382 SPOTTAIL SHINER 4 60 111-118 YELLOW PERCH 9 1946 143-357 1 WALLEYE 586 401 Iv 3 ALEWIFE 33 1125 154-191 CHANNEL CATFISH 1 280 320 TROUT PERCH 1 60 111-124— SPOTTAIL SHINER 3 40 106-121 YELLOW PERCH 6 585 155-246 WALLEYE 2 780 363-372 4 ALEWIFE 24 770 151-182 SPOTTAIL SHINER 2 30 120-128 YELLOW PERCH 15 1508 142-230 WALLEYE 3 1376 329-437 VI 3 ALEWIFE 59 2140 146-197 BLACK BULLHEAD 1 90 170 CHANNEL CATFISH 1 330 333 CROWN TROUT 1 5300 713 WHITE SUCKER 3 1135 230-361 SPOTTAIL SHINER 5 50 107-118 YELLOW PERCH 8 825 166-234 WALLEYE 8 71570 355-572 4 AL EWLFE 30 1005 149-190 TROUT PERCH 3 45 107-122 WHITE SUCKER 1 880 426 SPOTTAIL SHINER 4 60 114-127 YELLOW PERCH 20 3233 102-373 WALLEYE 1 390 353 50 TOTAL LENGSH TOTAL WEIGHT RANGE DATE TRANSECT STATION SPECIES NO. (5) (Mi) 10/19/60 i Zc LAKE TROUT 15 43250 582-7235 SPOTTAIL SHINER 4 50 110-125 4 LAE TROUT 4 12675 650-725 WHITE SUCKER 2 1740 281-420 SPOTIAIL SHINER 1 10 102 YELLOW PERCH 3 670 N21) IV 3 LAKE TROUT 13 41700 SIA 1/ De) SPOTTAIL SHINER 5 co 104-115 4 LAXE TROUT 1) 28400 546-710. SPOTTAIL SHINER 2 25 UZ Ss Nak 3 LAKE TROUT 1 3800 750 SPOTTAIL SHINER 2 30 108-113 4 LAKE TROUT 1 33C9 690 WHITE SUCKER 1 160 250 SPITTAIL SHINER 15 17e@ 102-120 YELLOW PERCH 3 268 NE2Z=2/0'2 6/10/81 I 3 ALEWIFE 12, 500 174-198 RAINBOW SMELT i 200 164-180 TROUT PERCH 4 50 112-125 SPOTTAIL SHINER 8 100 109-120 YELLOW PERCH 17 3000 144-340 4 ALEWIFE 10 445 158-187 RAINGOW SHELT 4 150 156-179 TROUT PERCH 3 50 110-124 ROUND WHITEFISH 1 50 176 WHITE SUCKER 2 2150 337-520 SPOTTAIL SHINER 12 200 107-122 YELLGW PERCH 23 3400 142-265 Iv 3 ALEWIFE 168 5950 162-195 RAINGOW SMELT 1 22 162 CHANNEL CATFISH 1 300 345 TROUT PERCH 12 150 102-122 WHITE SUCKER 5 3725 371-440 SPOTTAIL SHINER 40 560 Ds — 26 WALLEYE L 5090 360 4 ALEWIFE 2 100 UPS) RAINBOW SMELT 1 50 205 TROUT PERCH 18 300 101-130 SPOTTAIL SHINER 19 250 105-129 YELLOW PERCH 8 2950 1960-348 WALLEYE 1 409 337 VI 3 ALEWIFE 200 7000 160-193 TROUT PERCH 4 50 117-132 SPOTTAIL SHINER 32 410 105-121 YELLOW PERCH 3 863 185-337 4 ALCWIFE 39 1550 162-194 RAINBOW SMELT 1 20 159 TRUUT PERCH 9 125 LS Sil! SPOTTAIL SHINER - M7 230 108-125 YELLOW PERCH 4 605 196-256 wo a on ne ee enn an = = nr a en 51 TOTAL LELGTH TOTAL WEIGHT RANGE GATE TRANS© CL STATION SPECIES NO. (c) (hi) T/15/EL if 3 AL EWIFE 29 1125 148-189 WHITE SUCKER. 2 150 3327--246 SSP TAVIS Cites 4 50 WIESE TE YELLOW PERCH 4 870 ABD=C 1h 6 WALL EYE 5950 BAC =6:5'5 4 ALEWIFE 23 650 140-201 WHITE SUCKER 4 1370 275=3.0 SPOTIATL SHINEK 3 30 ei was} YELLOW PERCH & 2320 165-340 Iv 3 ALEWIFE 6 170 160-173 WHITE SUCKER 1 650 385 SPOTTAIL SHINER 1 15, 110 YELLOW PERCH 3 555 142-231 WALLEYE 7 1920 259-360 4 ALEWIFE 12 359 VST aaiG WHITE SUCKER 2 480 74-360 SPOTTAIL SHINER 2 20 115-117 YELLOW PERCH 3 300 170-200 WALLEYE 6 2250 312-470 VI 3 ALEWIFE QU 620 103-181 SPCTTAIL SHINER 4 40 Re leks YELLOW PERCH U 1500 V45 2.916 WALLEYE 3 1750 DeBary o) 4 ALEWIFE 24 256 144-189 WHITE SUCKER 5 295 345-411 SPUTTAIL SHINER 5) 40 She) YELLOW PERCH 1 55 WES WALLEYVE 5 SNS 323-479 10/ 6/81 1 3 PURPOT 1 1500 585 TROUT PERCH 1 5 102 CHINCOK SALMON jt 4900 77S LAKE TROUT 7 24650 620-7655 COHO SALMON 1 750 3€0 WHITE SUCKER 1 700 375 ROCKBASS 1 210 212 4 RAINBOW SMELT 2 30 150-180 LAKE TROUT 4 15650 740-7T7% WHITE SUCKER 2 515 220-330 SPUTTAIL SHINER 2 20 110-120 Iv 3 LAKE TROUT 6 24700 697-779 4 LA 1) CARP 1 1725 485 WHITE SUCKER 3 1605 361-388 EMERALO SHINER 106 260 45-105 SPOTTAIL SHINER 91 653 ROONLG SAND SHINER 107 Nes Aqe 70 FLATBEAD MINNOW z 3 bao Sa LOMNGNOSE DACE 5 17 66- 80 MOTTLED SCULPIN 2 3 4g Iv 1 ALEWTFE 33 127 IEPeNOs RATHSOW SMELT 2 2 49- 56 TROUT PEACH 132 1266 64-130 CHINOOK SALMON 1 1 Wa 0% CARP 1 3700 637 WHITE SUCKER 1 B25 428 EMERALD SHINER 11 3 66- 94 SPOTTAIL SHINER 116 999 80-118 SAND SHINER 2 3 58- 63 LONGNOSE DACE 23 11 54- 92 VI 1 AL EWIFE 14 eH KKK @1-185 RAINBOW SMELT 1 1 53 TROUT PERCH 33 318 69-134 FRESHWATER DRUM 1 258 300 CARP 2 4915 505-570 EMERALO SHINER 13 32 62- 92 SPOTTAIL SHINER 30 176 41-132 SAND SHINER 1 1 52 7/24/80 I 1 AL EWIFE 2 32 52- 83 TROUT PERCH 107 757 44-124 CARP 1 3300 603 EMERALD SHINER 53 163 59- 91 SPOTTAIL SHINER 13 167 46-117 SAND SHINER 23 42 54- 74 LONGNOSE DACE 6 13 53- 79 Iv 1 ALEWIFE 4 90 84-187 TROUT PERCH 144 948 63-129 EMERALD SHINER 4 16 T2- 94 SPOTTAIL SHINER 223 1701 56-113 “ LONGNOSE DACE 23 61 B= OS JOHNNY DARTER 1) Oman 4) LOGPERCH 2 wey HH Sa 72 YELLOW PERCH 1 KERR EK 68 VI 1 ALEWIFE 1 28 157 RAINBOW SMELT 1 1 31 TROUT PERCH 144 432 46-110 WHITE SUCKER 2 720 275-365 EMERALD SHINER 9 24 Tile OS SPOTTAIL SHINER 152 1015 42-119 SAND SHINER 5 11 53- 68 LOGP EACH 1 4 96 YELLOW PERCH 10 1204 101-237 1l/ * Indicates that no measurements were taken. 54 TOTAL LENGTH TOTAL WEIGHT RANGE DATE TRANSECT STATION SPECIES NO. (G) (hi) 10/20/80 I dt GIZZARD SHAD 1326 WES) 62-180 RAINGOW TROUT 1 300 270 EMERALD SHINER 7 22 GI WB} IV 1 GI7ZARD SHAD out 1730 SO SN45 RAINBOW SMELT 19 14 46- 671 EMERALD SHINER 8 28 USS, Oi SPOTTAIL SHINER 1 5 87 SAND SHINER 3 5 DAS (2 LONGNOSE DACE 117 363 N= St LOGPERCH 3 20 Ma Ye RIVER DARTER 3 3 Gye} Bye) MOTTLED SCULPIN 2 26 SYS We VI 1 G1IZZARD SHAD 1568 12500 64-172 RAINBOW SMELT 8 5 44- 64 LACE TROUT 1 2000 530 EMERALD SHINER 1 4 &9 SPOTTAIL SHINER 4 16 SS MOTTLED SCULPIN 1 4 64 6/10/81 I 1 ALEWIFE 103 3910 VAMOY RAINBOW SMELT 12 280 144-185 TROUT PERCH 50 515 UUM 233 CHINOSK SALMON 14 55 66- 85 WHITE SUCKER 2 1260 367-419 EMERALD SHINER 82 420 ZN SPOTTAIL SHINER 63 590 80-117 SAND SHINER 3 4 DO> Ot LONGNOSE DACE 8 16 HO 1/3 RGCKBASS 1 280 ENS YELLOW PERCH 1 125 Cali Iv 1 “ALEWITFE 52 1846 SINS) TROUT PERCH 284 2459 70-129 CHINOOK SALMON 2 i 174-176 EMERALD SHINER 38 175 78-102 SPOTTAIL SHINER 43 398 80-116 SAND SHINER 2 2 DO> 7/ LONGNOSE DACE 1 5 Oo VI 1 ALEWIFE 19 SNES) NEG NOY GIZZARD SHAD 1 950 452 TROUT PERCH 37 318 USI ass CHINOOK SALMON 16 58 65) 182 WHITE SUCKER 1 1125 440° EMERALD SHINER N32 585 US—)UONo) SPOTTAIL SHINER 144 1270 UUM UE YELLOW PERCH Z 550 ZHV-AOI WALLEYE 1 410 SIMI MOTTLED SCULPIN 3 8 Uc ST 55 TOTAL LENGTH TOTAL WEIGHT RANGE DATE TRANSECT STATION SPECTES NO. (G) CMM) 7/195/781 I 1 ALEWIFE 3 107 136-149 CARP 1 6715 675 EMERALD SHINER 3 20 T0-105 SPOTTAIL SHINER 2 18 BB = ngi2 LONGNOSt DACE 1 5 66 Iv 1 ALEWIFE 7 148 130-162 TROUT PERCH 1 3 86 EMERALD SHINER 1 & 1% SPOTTAIL SHINER 3 22 BTS 96 LONGNOSS OAGE 1 9 90 VI 1 TROUT PERCH 6 28 60- 96 EMERALD SHINER 2 i 68- 74 SPOTTAIL SHINER 29 217 66-111 SAND SHINER 1 3 57 LONGNOSE DACE 1 3 58 MOTTLED SCULPIN 1 5 59 11/22/81 i 1 GIZZARD SHAD 6 95 88-168 SPOTTAIL SHINER 1 18 106 SAND SHINER 13 20 34- 68 BLUNTNOSE MINNOW 2 6 VS 7/(0) LONGNOSE DACE 2 5 67- 68 MOTTILED SCULPIN 1 2 40 IV 1 GIZZARD SHAD 7 5 €7T-127 RAINGOW SMELT 1 7 108 EMCRALD SHINER 8 20 42- 93 MOTTLED SCULPIN 1 5 66 VI a GIZZARD SHAD 10 78 76-122 RAINBOW SMELT 1 8 117 EMERALD SHINER 1 2 56 SAND SHINER 8 10 53- 65 56 L279 €1-78 *ou awTgcn° €072OL TEliSay POU £((°S°n) aequag yoieessy BuTiseuTSuq Teqseoj) j1ode1 snosueTTs9STW !S9TI8S “AI °(°S°N) AequaD YyoIeesey BuTIeeuTSuq Teyseop “III ‘qd seuou, 690d “II “eTIEL “1 = “uesTYOTW ‘S10qieH uoRBUTXeT * 4h *uoinyH eye] *€ “*S}IeFFO TeOTBOTOTY *Z “juewWysTAnou yoesg °T *JOqGieH Uuo_ABUTXe] Je JUuaMUOCATAUS DTJenbe atoysieseu sy UO SBTITATIOP quamystinou yoeeq jo sjzoasja saptaAoad ‘Az0j}eIOGe] AdAaysTy sayey] e219 S,290TAI2S 2JTIPTIM pue usta *S*n Aq peqonpuod Apnys e ‘}10de1 sTUL «C861 TeqUeAON,, *aTqTq 1aA09 (€1-Z8 "ou £ Jaquag yorRessy Sutdieeutsuy Teqseog / ysodei snoaueTTeosstTW)--"wo gz f “TIT *d [9¢] “7861 “SITIN Woly eTqeTTeae : “eA ‘ptetzysutads ‘1equeg yoressey SutiseuTsuq qTeqseoj ‘siveutTsuq jo sdiog ‘Away *S°n : “eA SATOATOG 310q--30d *d semou], pue JaqSseN *], yteqoy Aq / (ueBTYOTW) AoOqaey uojJBuTXe] Je uorNK aye] UT JUeMUOITAUS eIOYSIeeU ay} UO JUEeMSTIinou yoreq jo sjIeFFq *L J4eqoy ‘199SeN 109 €1-28 “ou qwTgcn* €072OL “€I-Z8 *ou '((°S°N) tequepg yoiressy BuTIseuTSsuUy [Te seo)) J10de1 snosaueTTe0STW :SeTI9g “AI °*(°S*f) Jaqueg yoreasoy ButiesuTsuq TeqseoD “III *q seuou, ‘90g *II] “eTITL ‘1 “uesTYyoOT ‘i10qiey uoqBuTxe] *4 *uodnyH eye] *€ ‘“SsqoesyjJo TeOTZOTOTg *Z *quewysTInou yoeeg *] *JoqiIeH uoBuTXe] Je JuaWUOATAUS OTJenbe aioysiesu sy} uO SaTITATIOP quawystinou yoreq jo sqoe}ya Saptaoid ‘ArojeIOGe] ALaysty saye] Jee19g S,90TAI9S OFTIPTIM pue usta *S°n Aq paqonpuod Apnjys e ‘j10dei STYUL «C861 TEQuoAON,, *9T3ITI 1eAOCD (€1-Z8 ‘ou £ Jaquepg yoreessy suyisveutsuq ~Teqseog / 310de1 snoaueyT{Te0sTW)--°wo Bz + “TIF *d [96] “7861 *SITIN Woaz eTqgeTteaAe : *eA ‘SplTatyButads ‘i1equeg yoieasey ButiseutTsuq qTeyseo) ‘siseautTsuq jo sdiop ‘Away *S*n : “eA SATOATOG JAOY¥--320g *d sewoyuy, pue 1aqseN *] Jteqoy Aq / (ueBTYOTW) JoqaeH uozIsUTXe] Je UuoINH aye] UT JUsMUOITAUS asiOYSIeeU By} UO JUSWYSTAnou yoeeq Jo SjIezFq *] Jaeqoy ‘1299SeN L109 €1-c8 °ou awTgsn* €072OL OE R4e} COW £((°S°n) atequeg yoiessay ButiseuTSuq Te seo)) Jiodei snosueT Tass TH :SeTIJeS “AI °(°S*°M) aeque9 yoreasay BuTiseuTsuq Te3seo) “III ‘qd seuoulL 690d *I] “OTT °I ‘“uestyoTW ‘S10qieY uoqBuTXeT *4 *uOINH oyeT "€ “*SjoeFJa TeOTZoOToOTY *Z *UeWYSTInou yoeeg °T *Joqiey uojZuTXe] Je JUuaWMUCATAUS DTJeNbe sioysieseu ay} UO SaTRTATIOe jJuewystinou yoreq jo sqoezjJa saeptAoad ‘A10}e10Ge] AJaYSTy saye] e819 $,90TAI9S SJTIPTIM pue ysta °*S*n Aq paqonpuod Apnys e ‘310de1 sTUL «C861 Taqueron,, *eTI3Tq 198A0D (€1-Z8 °ou £ JeqUuaeQ YyoIePesay Sutisvautsuq Teqseog / yiodei snosueTTeostW)--"wo gz : “TTF *d [9¢] “7861 *“SILN Woajy aTqetTeae : ‘ea ‘pzTetzsutads ‘taque9 yoIessay BuTiseuTsuq Teqseog ‘sasveutsuq go sdiog ‘Away *S*h : “eA SATOATeG JIO4--30d *d sewouy, pue JeaqSsaN *L yteqoy hq / (ueSTYOTW) TOqieyH uozRBUTXeT Je UOoANK aye] UF JuswuoATAUus aioYysiesU vy UO JUaWNSTANOU YoOeaq JO SsjoaTIFq *L Jaeqoy ‘12839S9N ECO) Sieg Sou AwTgcn* £0201 SEilIK6e} TO £((°S°n) atequeg yoieasay BuyiseuTsuy [ejseoj) JIodeA snosueT[e0STW :SoT4Teg “AI °*(°S°N) Jequepg yoieasay BuTiseutTsuqg TeqseoD “III ‘qd sewouy 600g “Il ‘eTITL “I ‘uestTyoTW ‘a0qiey uoqBuTXe] *y *uOINH exe *€ “*SJIeFJa TeOTBOTOT_ *Z ‘*JuewYysTinou yoeeg °] *10qieY u0IZUTXe] Je JUeWUOTTAUS DTJeNbe aioysivsu 3ay} UO SaeTITATIIe quawystinou yoeeq jo sqdesza saptAord ‘AroOjeIOGeT] ATeYyStTy sexe] e019 S,90TAL8S SFJTTPTIM pue usta *S*m Aq pagonpuod Apnqs e ‘j20dea1 sTYL «° C86T AequoAoN,, “aT 198009 (€1-78 “Ou £ Jaqueg yoreessy SutTiseuzsuy Teqyseog / jiodax1 snoaueTTeostTW)--"wo gz : “TTT *d [9c] “Z86T “STIN Wory eTqeTTeae : *eA ‘prTatzSutads ‘rajque) yoieesey ButiseuT3Zuq yTeqseo) ‘siaeutSuq jo sdiop ‘Away *S*n : *eA SATOATOG 210q--20g *d sewoyy, pue 103SeN *] yteqoy Aq / (uesTYSTW) Joqiey uojIZuTXeT Je UoINY aye] UT JUsMUOTTAUS arOYSieeU By} UO JUdUTYSTANOU Yoeaq JO S}IeFFq *L Jaaqoy £199SeN