Wisconsin Sea Grant

Abstract Objective Populations of Lake Whitefish Coregonus clupeaformis have supported commercial fisheries in the Laurentian Great Lakes for centuries, and while recent basinwide trends are down, the Lake Whitefish population resident to the waters of Green Bay has experienced an increasing trend since at least the early 2000s, partly attributable to reestablished river-spawning populations and productivity. The result is amplified commercial harvest in parts of the lower bay and an interest in increasing harvest quotas. The central goal of this study was to provide managers with a more precise understanding of spatial and temporal distribution of Lake Whitefish and nontarget species catch associated with the commercial fishery within the Wisconsin waters of Green Bay, Lake Michigan. The specific objectives of our work were to (1) quantify commercially harvested and discarded Lake Whitefish within Green Bay, (2) determine the rate and incidence of capture of nontarget species, and (3) establish an estimate for the levels of direct fishing mortality of discarded Lake Whitefish and nontarget species. We also aimed to determine whether predictive relationships exist between harvest, discards, and mortality and external drivers and/or fishing practices as reported elsewhere. Methods Using onboard monitoring sampling techniques, a numeric estimate of catch, bycatch, and mortality of Lake Whitefish and nontarget species was obtained. Catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) calculations were applied across a spatial and temporal scale. These estimates were also compared with commercial fisher self-reported values on monitored fishing days using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. Further, generalized additive models were used to determine associations of observed catch and mortality with environmental and fishing-related factors such as water temperature, depth, and soak time. Results A total of 389 commercial trap-net lifts were observed from April to September during the 2021 commercial fishing season. We observed 129,345 Lake Whitefish, with 63,061 harvested and 66,284 discarded. Mean observed discard mortality was estimated at approximately 2% in nets. The majority of observed Lake Whitefish harvest occurred in June and was generally associated with factors including water depth, soak time, and surface water temperature. Fisher self-reported values of harvest were not significantly different from monitored values; however, there was a significant difference in reported and monitored values of discards. A total of 2,941 nontarget fish were observed. Walleye Sander vitreus, a key sport fish in the area, composed 38.8% of all observed nontarget fish and were predominately caught during April, May, June, and September. The difference in the reported and monitored values of Walleye was marginally not significant. Conclusions Lake Whitefish harvest and discards in Green Bay occurred largely in zone 1 (southern Green Bay) with concentrated fishing effort. The CPUE was greatest for Lake Whitefish during the middle of the fishing season. The CPUE of nontarget species bycatch, especially Walleye, occurred mostly in zone 1 and during the early and late fishing season. There is little evidence that suggests that self-reported harvest is inaccurate; however, discards and bycatch may be underreported and worthy of further consideration. It is probable that some environmental drivers may be playing a role in Lake Whitefish and bycatch trends; however, further data are necessary to increase predictive power of models. The results of this study aids managers and fishers in finding a balance between optimizing Lake Whitefish harvest while mitigating the potential impacts of the commercial fishery on nontarget fishes.

Four regional Communities of Practice (CoPs) were developed across the coasts of Wisconsin and Minnesota to help communities connect with each other as they address their common challenges with coastal hazards like erosion, storms, and flooding. Great Lakes coastal hazards are significantly influenced by the water levels of the lakes, which can vary by up to ∼ 2 m (∼6.5 feet) between record highs and lows. These decadal fluctuations of water levels can lead to hazard impacts being forgotten in between the extremes, resulting in a diminished capacity to address coastal hazards when extreme conditions return. These hazards are expected to persist and potentially become more severe due to changing climate conditions. To build capacity to address coastal hazards, public officials and staff have consistently expressed a need for structure and leadership to guide knowledge sharing and collaborative action between coastal communities. The four regional CoPs coordinated learning and sharing among communities to collectively build coastal resilience and bring more resources to the region. These CoPs have provided members with learning opportunities, relationship building activities, technical assistance, and regular communications about hazards and resources. Members report that their participation in the CoPs resulted in outcomes that reduce coastal hazard risk, including improved planning, enhanced mapping capabilities, and identification of priority coastal management practices. The technical and social capacity created through the CoPs has helped members work across boundaries to navigate complex coastal hazard issues. Through regular evaluation, the CoPs have continued to evolve to meet changing needs of their member coastal communities.

ABSTRACTDespite being politicized in its early stages, the Red Wolf (Canis rufus) Recovery Program (RWRP) existed for 30 years in eastern North Carolina with little attention paid to finding common ground between policy contestants. We situated our data from 62 key informant interviews within Stone’s (2002) policy goals framework to evaluate red wolf recovery in eastern North Carolina, United States. Four goals underpin U.S. political culture and offer common ground with which to begin negotiation among policy contestants. Our results highlight challenges to achieving one definition prescribing how to treat each policy goal. The future of recovery within the red wolf’s historic range could hinge on decision-makers’ willingness to prioritize policy design over policy tool evaluation, developing a process by which to achieve an agreed-upon set of values underscoring red wolf recovery. This process must reconcile disagreements about what is fair or equitable treatment of landowners and include local-level experiences.

Sediment remediation involves restricted activities in the dredging process in order to minimize environmental risk. Operational constraints add significant capital cost to the overall project. This paper presents an example of the special conditions for a typical environmental dredging operation. REMSIM software, which simulates the sediment remediation processes, aids in planning for environmental dredging by reducing uncertainties in cost and performance estimations. The scow and bucket capacities, number of scows, and effective working time are parameters that improve productivity significantly as they are increased. The purpose of this paper is to help dredging contractors use their navigational dredging knowledge base to estimate costs, performance, and equipment selection for future environmental dredging projects where contaminant dispersion is a concern. REMSIM is used to obtain cost and productivity comparisons between environmental dredging and typical navigational dredging situations. Equipment and performance parameters can be adjusted in order to compensate for environmental dredging limitations while improving productivity and minimizing costs.

Abstract During the early development of the national coastal zone management program there was no federal prescription with regard to how coastal states should proceed in establishing their programs institutionally. At one end of the spectrum was the California model—a new coastal ‘'superagency'’ with power not only to plan, but to regulate development. At the other end of the spectrum was an approach which relied on existing agencies and authorities and improved policy development and coordination; this approach was described as “networking.”; Many coastal advocacy groups, academics, and bureaucrats viewed the networked model with skepticism. With more than a decade of experience, we here review and critique the efficacy of this approach to coastal management. Lessons learned from experimentation with networked coastal management programs may provide important lessons for other regional land and water resources management efforts.