USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Hunting & Fishing”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
USGS2012

Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge: Lake Lowell water based recreation data summary

Introduction: Established in 1909, Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge is one of the oldest refuges in the National Wildlife Refuge System. The Refuge has two units, Lake Lowell and the Snake River Islands. The Lake Lowell Unit is 10,636 acres and includes the almost 9,000-acre Lake Lowell and surrounding lands. The Refuge offers the six priority wildlife-dependent activities (fishing, hunting, wildlife observation, wildlife interpretation, wildlife photography and environmental education) as defined in The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act as amended by the Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 as well as other non-wildlife-dependent activities. The purpose of this study is to describe use characteristics of recreational boaters on Lake Lowell. This study does not address use in other parts of the Refuge or other recreational activities. The sampling and data collection consisted of observations of boat activity made from fixed vantage points on the west and east pools of Lake Lowell to develop vessels-at-one-time (VAOT) estimates for three areas: the West Pool, the Headquarters section of the East Pool, and the East section of the East Pool. A complete description of the sampling locations and a map are provided below Traffic counters were also used to collect data on the number of vehicles entering the parking lots. Data were collected between April 15 and September 30, 2011.

Idaho↗
USGS1953

Chemical and physical quality examination

In a balanced study of water pollution or water utilization a thorough chemical and physical examination is essential. This provides a basis for evaluation of stream conditions, their effects and remedies. Such information is of value to the general public who are interested in clean water and in recreation, hunting, fishing, and wildlife; to the chemist, engineer, hydrologist, and industrialist who are interested in the domestic and industrial use of water both as raw material and as a vehicle for the removal of waste materials; to the sanitarian who is interested in healthful conditions; and to the biologist who is interested in maintaining a favorable biological balance. For every living plant and animal there are optimum physical and chemical conditions and these characteristics are determining factors in the aquatic life of any body of water.

Lake Erie↗
USGS2020

An open-sourced, web-based application to improve our ability to understand hunter and angler purchasing behavior from license data

State fish and wildlife agencies rely on hunters and anglers (i.e., sportspersons) to fund management actions through revenue generated from license sales and excise taxes on hunting and fishing equipment. There is a need to develop new techniques that bridge the information gap on participation and provide agencies with an understanding of sportspersons at a resolution that can more directly inform efforts to engage sportspersons. Monitoring sportsperson participation using information about their license-purchasing behavior has the potential to reveal important patterns in recruitment (first-time purchase of a hunting or fishing license), retention (continued purchase of licenses across multiple years), and reactivation (purchase a license after several years with no purchases). Providing up-to-date information on what licenses are purchased, when and by whom may prove invaluable to managers and policy makers. We present a customizable, open-source, web-based application—huntfishapp—that allows the user to query and interact with a structured query language (SQL) hunting and fishing license database. The huntfishapp serves as an informational resource and tool that provides a framework to share information on license sales across an agency, with intent of increasing understanding of (a) sportspersons and (b) how management decisions affect sportspersons. Data dashboards, like the huntfishapp, allow agencies and non-governmental organizations to become more knowledgeable of their customer base and provide a greater understanding of management-decision effects on hunting and fishing participation.

PLoS ONE↗
USGS2020

Understanding sportsperson retention and reactivation through license purchasing behavior

Most state and provincial fish and wildlife agencies have access to important information about patterns in sportsperson participation through their license databases. Using transaction data from Nebraska Game and Parks Commission's electronic hunting and fishing license system, we tracked license purchases of Nebraska, USA, resident license holders in 2010 through 2017. We categorized sportspersons by gender and yearly purchases as hunting only (Hunter), fishing only (Angler), a combination of hunting and fishing (Hunter–Angler), or no purchases (Inactive). The probability of movement among active sportsperson groups was limited and varied little based on initial group participation. The Angler group had the greatest probability of an individual transitioning to the Inactive group (females = 0.39; males = 0.33). The Hunter–Angler group had the greatest probability of an individual remaining within the same group (females = 0.65; males = 0.76). There was a relatively low probability of an individual in the Hunter group moving to the Angler group and vice versa (≤0.02). The sportsperson population is dynamic and understanding patterns of sportsperson participation is important for the future of fish and wildlife management in North America. Using data readily available to most fish and wildlife agencies has the potential to significantly improve our understanding of hunter and angler participation and aid management agencies and conservation organizations in the development of more effective strategies for managing sportspersons. © 2020 The Wildlife Society.

Wildlife Society Bulletin↗
USGS1976

[Book review] American sportsmen and the origins of conservation

The relationship of this book to ornithology is so indirect that the work barely merits a review on these pages. In a rather subtle way, however, the book may have a considerable effect on at least one aspect of ornithology, that involving scientific collecting. In essence, the volume is an entry in the hunting versus antihunting controversy, by a historian who is a sportsman. A challenge to antihunting preservationists, the premise is that sportsmen (those who hunt and fish for pleasure rather than for food or profit), and not preservationists, were the founders of conservation concepts in the United States. The implied conclusion is that modern hunting and fishing are valid, conservation- oriented activities. The proof of the thesis depends on demonstrating that those persons who led the conservation movement were in fact sportsmen, as defined, rather than fitting any other categorization, and that only those who fit the definition were effective. The method is to detail both the sporting proclivities and conservation efforts of leaders in the movement and to ignore or belittle other activities of those persons and other persons not considered sportsmen. Although effective in making a point, the technique suffers from the difficulties inherent in any one-character classification.

The Auk↗
USGS2021

Harvest as a tool to manage populations of undesirable or overabundant fish and wildlife

Harvest is a common management tool for fish and game species and can also be used for overabundant populations when stakeholders want to reduce populations reduced and still provide recreational opportunities. The authors propose a framework to determine if harvest can be used to control populations when overabundance is an issue, stakeholders support harvest, information is available to set harvest goals and evaluate impacts of harvest, and assessments are conducted to evaluate unintended consequences of harvest. The chapter provides two case examples of mid-continent light geese and blue catfish in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, for which overabundance was a problem and stakeholders had interest in harvest. Substantial data existed to set goals for light geese whereas blue catfish data were limited. For both light geese and blue catfish, desired outcomes have not yet been achieved, but hunting and fishing opportunities generated societal benefits despite existing barriers to increasing harvest. Harvest to control overabundant populations can be a useful tool, but consideration of stakeholder support, the data require to establish and monitor goals, and unintended consequences should be considered for an effective harvest plan. Harvest is a common management tool used for centuries to limit populations of game species (Caughley 1977, Redmond 1986). Managing populations using harvest regulations allow certain sizes, numbers, sex, and species to be harvested, and often include open or closed seasons. Regulated hunting opportunity and harvest are cornerstones of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, which developed gradually following unregulated harvest of wildlife populations that often were at risk of overharvest or extinction (Geist et al. 2001). Since then, many populations have recovered and expanded to the point where harvest regulations are now often used to limit or even reduce populations of some species. In general, harvest regulations have been well established as an effective way to control animal populations in many aquatic and terrestrial systems and are broadly accepted among the hunting and fishing public. For example, harvest regulations have been established or adapted to reduce or control populations of feral hogs (Sus scrofa; Hanson et al. 2009), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus; Simard et al. 2013) and cougar (Puma concolor; Cooley et al. 2009), overabundant small black bass (Micropertus spp.; Isermann and Paukert 2010), northern pike (Esox lucius; Pierce 2010) or non-native species (Arlinghaus et al. 2016b). Harvest has also been employed as a tool for controlling populations of invasive species. However, in many cases invasive species are so overabundant that a substantial commitment to harvest is necessary, which may exceed recreational harvest capacity and require commercial harvest or an active lethal control program by management agencies. Often removal of invasive species is challenging because the ultimate goal may be to eliminate the entire population, which may require impractical efforts. For example, controlling Asian carp in the Illinois River may require harvest rates of at least 70% (Tsehaye et al. 2013), whereas in the Great Smoky Mountains, an annual harvest rate of 40% would be necessary to decrease feral hog populations (Salinas et al. 2015). Many invasive species are known to negatively impact native species and ecosystems; thus, eradication is an ideal outcome. However, there may be opportunity to use harvest to control populations of native (or non-native) species that have some value yet are still overabundant. In this chapter, we explore the process of using harvest to control overabundant populations that have some recreational value, provide two examples to control overabundant populations using harvest, and describe the challenges and effectiveness associated with these efforts and some of the unintended effects of using harvest to control populations.

Book chapter↗
USGS2017

Biological and ecological science for Florida—The Sunshine State

Florida is rich in sunshine and other natural resources essential to the State's economy. More than 100 million tourists visit Florida's beaches, wetlands, forests, oceans, lakes, and streams where they generate billions of dollars and sustain more than a million jobs. Florida also provides habitat for several thousand freshwater and marine fish, mammals, birds, and other wildlife that are viewed, hunted, or fished, or that provide valuable ecological services. Fertile soils and freshwater supplies support agriculture and forest industries and generate more than $8 billion of revenue annually and sustain thousands of jobs.

Florida↗
USGS1964

Chemical quality of surface water in the West Branch Susquehanna River basin, Pennsylvania

The West Branch Susquehanna River is 228 miles long and drains 6,913 square miles of mountainous area in central Pennsylvania. Much of this area is forestcovered wilderness, part of which is reserved as State game land. Wild animals, such as deer, bear, turkey and grouse, are sheltered there, and many streams contain trout and other game fish. This helps to make the region one of the best hunting and fishing areas in Pennsylvania. The Congress has approved Federal funds for the construction of several reservoirs to prevent flooding of the main river and several of its tributaries. Water stored behind the dams will not be withdrawn below a minimum level designated as conservation pools. These pools will be available for recreation. Several headwater streams, such as Clearfield, Moshannon, and at times Sinnemahoning Creek, that carry drainage from coal mines are acid and contain high concentrations of dissolved solids, especially sulfates. These streams acidify the West Branch Susquehanna River downstream as far as Jersey Shore. One of the most influential tributaries affecting the quality of the West Branch Susquehanna River after they merge is Bald Eagle Creek. Bald Eagle Creek enters the main river downstream from Lock Haven which is approximately 100 river miles from the river's source. Because of its alkaline properties, water of Bald Eagle Creek can neutralize acidic water. Many streams draining small areas and several draining large areas such as Pine Creek, Lycoming Creek, and Loyalsock Creek are clear nearly neutral water low in dissolved solids whose pH is about 7.0 most of the time. These streams have a diluting and neutralizing effect on the quality of the West Branch Susquehanna River, so that from Williamsport downstream the river water is rarely acid, and for most of the time it is of good chemical quality.

Pennsylvania↗
USGS2013

National wildlife refuge visitor survey 2012--Individual refuge results

The National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System), established in 1903 and managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), is the leading network of protected lands and waters in the world dedicated to the conservation of fish, wildlife and their habitats. There are 560 national wildlife refuges and 38 wetland management districts nationwide, encompassing more than 150 million acres. The Refuge System attracts nearly 45 million visitors annually, including 34.8 million people who observe and photograph wildlife, 9.6 million who hunt and fish, and nearly 675,000 teachers and students who use refuges as outdoor classrooms. Understanding visitor perceptions of refuges and characterizing their experiences on refuges are critical elements of managing these lands and meeting the goals of the Refuge System. The Service collaborated with the U.S. Geological Survey to conduct a national survey of visitors regarding their experiences on national wildlife refuges. The purpose of the survey was to better understand visitor experiences and trip characteristics, to gauge visitors’ levels of satisfaction with existing recreational opportunities, and to garner feedback to inform the design of programs and facilities. The survey results will inform performance, planning, budget, and communications goals. Results will also inform Comprehensive Conservation Plans (CCPs), visitor services, and transportation planning processes. This Data Series consists of 25 separate data files. Each file describes the results of the survey for an individual refuge and contains the following information: • Introduction: An overview of the Refuge System and the goals of the national surveying effort. • Methods: The procedures for the national surveying effort, including selecting refuges, developing the survey instrument, contacting visitors, and guidance for interpreting the results.• Refuge Description: A brief description of the refuge location, acreage, purpose, recreational activities, and visitation statistics, including a map (where available) and refuge website link. • Sampling at This Refuge: The sampling periods, locations, and response rate for the refuge. • Selected Survey Results: Key findings for the refuge, including: o Visitor and trip characteristics o Visitor spending in the local communities o Visitors opinions about the refuge o Visitor opinions about National Wildlife Refuge System topics • Conclusion • References Cited • Survey Frequencies (Appendix A): The survey instrument with frequency results for the refuge. • Visitor Comments (Appendix B): The verbatim responses to the open-ended survey questions for the refuge.Individual-refuge results for the 53 participating refuges in the 2010-2011 national effort are available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/643/ as part of USGS Data Series 643. Combined results for the 53 participating refuges in the 2010-2011 national effort are available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/685/ as part of USGS Data Series 685.

Data Series↗
USGS2012

National wildlife refuge visitor survey 2010/2011: Individual refuge results

The National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System), established in 1903 and managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), is the leading network of protected lands and waters in the world dedicated to the conservation of fish, wildlife and their habitats. There are 556 national wildlife refuges and 38 wetland management districts nationwide, encompassing more than 150 million acres. The Refuge System attracts more than 45 million visitors annually, including 25 million people per year to observe and photograph wildlife, over 9 million to hunt and fish, and more than 10 million to participate in educational and interpretation programs. Understanding visitors and characterizing their experiences on national wildlife refuges are critical elements of managing these lands and meeting the goals of the Refuge System. The Service collaborated with the U.S. Geological Survey to conduct a national survey of visitors regarding their experiences on national wildlife refuges. The survey was conducted to better understand visitor needs and experiences and to design programs and facilities that respond to those needs. The survey results will inform Service performance planning, budget, and communications goals. Results will also inform Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCPs), Visitor Services, and Transportation Planning processes. This data series consists of 53 separate data files. Each file describes the results of the survey for an individual refuge and contains the following information: * Introduction: An overview of the Refuge System and the goals of the national surveying effort. * Methods: The procedures for the national surveying effort, including selecting refuges, developing the survey instrument, contacting visitors, and guidance for interpreting the results. * Refuge Description: A brief description of the refuge location, acreage, purpose, recreational activities, and visitation statistics, including a map (where available) and refuge website link. * Sampling at This Refuge: The sampling periods, locations, and response rate for the refuge. * Selected Survey Results: Key findings for the refuge, including: - Visitor and Trip Characteristics - Visitor Spending in the Local Communities - Visitors Opinions about This Refuge - Visitor Opinions about National Wildlife Refuge System Topics * Conclusion * References * Survey Frequencies (Appendix A): The survey instrument with the frequency results for this refuge. * Visitor Comments (Appendix B): The verbatim responses to the open-ended survey questions for this refuge. Combined results for the 53 participating refuges are available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/685/ as part of USGS Data Series 685.

Data Series↗
USGS2012

National wildlife refuge visitor survey results: 2010/2011

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) collaborated with the U.S. Geological Survey to conduct a national survey of visitors regarding their experiences on national wildlife refuges. The survey was conducted to better understand visitor needs and experiences and to design programs and facilities that respond to those needs. The survey results will inform Service performance planning, budget, and communications goals. Results will also inform Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCPs), Visitor Services, and Transportation Planning processes. The survey was conducted on 53 refuges across the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) to better understand visitor needs and experiences and to design programs and facilities that respond to those needs. A total of 14,832 visitors agreed to participate in the survey between July 2010 and November 2011. In all, 10,233 visitors completed the survey for a 71% response rate. This report provides a summary of visitor and trip characteristics; visitor opinions about refuges and their offerings; and visitor opinions about alternative transportation and climate change, two Refuge System topics of interest. The Refuge System, established in 1903 and managed by the Service, is the leading network of protected lands and waters in the world dedicated to the conservation of fish, wildlife and their habitats. There are 556 National Wildlife Refuges and 38 wetland management districts nationwide, encompassing more than 150 million acres. The Refuge System attracts more than 45 million visitors annually, including 25 million people per year to observe and photograph wildlife, over 9 million to hunt and fish, and more than 10 million to participate in educational and interpretation programs. Understanding visitors and characterizing their experiences on national wildlife refuges are critical elements of managing these lands and meeting the goals of the Refuge System. These combined results are based on surveying at 53 participating refuges during 2010/2011 and contain the following information: * Synopsis: Brief summary of the survey results. * Introduction: An overview of the Refuge System and the goals of the national surveying effort. * Methods: The procedures for the national surveying effort, including selecting refuges, developing the survey instrument, contacting visitors, and guidance for interpreting the results. * Survey Results: Key findings from the survey, including: - Visitor and trip characteristics - Visitors opinions about refuges - Visitor opinions about alternative transportation - Visitor opinions about climate change * Conclusion * References Individual results for each of the 53 participating refuges are available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/643/ as part of USGS Data Series 643.

Data Series↗
USGS2024

Using integrated step selection to determine effects of predation risk on bison habitat selection and movement

Animal movement is a fundamental mechanism that shapes communities and ecosystems. Ungulates alter the ecosystems they inhabit and understanding their movements and distribution is critical for linking habitat with population dynamics. Predation risk has been shown to strongly influence ungulate movement patterns, such that ungulates may select habitat where predation risk is lower (refugia), adjust movement rates, temporal patterns, or selection of cover variables in areas with greater predation risk. We evaluated potential predation avoidance behavior in a population of plains bison inhabiting the north rim of Grand Canyon National Park (GRCA) and adjacent Kaibab National Forest (KNF). The KNF has year-round hunting managed by Arizona Game and Fish Department, whereas hunting is not allowed in GRCA. Human-maintained water sources on the KNF are particularly important resources for bison wherein they may be exposed to higher predation risk to access these resources. We used 2-h GPS locations for three years from 31 bison ( n = 9 males; n = 22 females), and integrative step selection analysis to test four hypotheses about the potential for bison to reduce their risk from human predation by avoiding areas of high predation risk; moving faster in areas with high predation risk; entering high-risk areas at night when risk is reduced; and entering high-risk areas in habitats that provide cover (coniferous forest). The highest performing model indicated bison movement was 1.3 times faster per 2-h step interval than in areas with no hunting across all vegetation classes (coniferous forest, shrub, quaking aspen, grass-forb meadow) and across all topography classes (valley, slope, ridge). Bison moved more slowly in grass-forb meadows than all other vegetation types, and in valleys relative to slopes and ridges. Several radio-collared individuals had no GPS locations in KNF for the duration of the study. Bison avoided predation risk using two strategies: moving faster while in the KNF, and fully avoiding high-risk areas by remaining within GRCA. Management that manipulates or reduces timing of hunting seasons may reduce perceived predation risk and encourage bison to distribute into the KNF and across a broader range of available habitat.

Arizona↗
USGS2010

Sikuliqiruq: Ice dynamics of the Meade river - Arctic Alaska, from freezeup to breakup from time-series ground imagery

Ice formation and breakup on Arctic rivers strongly influence river flow, sedimentation, river ecology, winter travel, and subsistence fishing and hunting by Alaskan Natives. We use time-series ground imagery ofthe Meade River to examine the process at high temporal and spatial resolution. Freezeup from complete liquid cover to complete ice cover ofthe Meade River at Atqasuk, Alaska in the fall of 2008 occurred in less than three days between 28 September and 2 October 2008. Breakup in 2009 occurred in less than two hours between 23:47 UTC on 23 May 2009 and 01:27 UTC on 24 May 2009. All times in UTC. Breakup in 2009 and 2010 was ofthe thermal style in contrast to the mechanical style observed in 1966 and is consistent with a warming Arctic. ?? 2010 Taylor & Francis.

Polar Geography↗
USGS1992

Outdoors America: recreational opportunites on public lands

What comes to your mind when you think of outdoor recreation? Boating? Camping? Hiking or backpacking? Horse-back riding? Hunting or fishing? Chances are, if you can name an outdoor activity, you can do it on public lands.

General Information Product↗
USGS2011

The USA National Phenology Network; taking the pulse of our planet

People have tracked phenology for centuries and for the most practical reasons: it helped them know when to hunt and fish, when to plant and harvest crops, and when to navigate waterways. Now phenology is being used as a tool to assess climate change and its effects on both natural and modified ecosystems. How is the timing of events in plant and animal life cycles, like flowering or migration, responding to climate change? And how are those responses, in turn, affecting people and ecosystems? The USA National Phenology Network (the Network) is working to answer these questions for science and society by promoting a broad understanding of plant and animal phenology and their relationship to environmental change. The Network is a consortium of organizations and individuals that collect, share, and use phenology data, models, and related information to enable scientists, resource managers, and the public to adapt in response to changing climates and environments. In addition, the Network encourages people of all ages and backgrounds to observe and record phenology as a way to discover and explore the nature and pace of our dynamic world. The National Coordinating Office (NCO) of the Network is a resource center that facilitates and encourages widespread collection, integration, and sharing of phenology data and related information (for example, meteorological and hydrological data). The NCO develops and promotes standardized methods for field data collection and maintains several online user interfaces for data upload and download, as well as data exploration, visualization, and analysis. The NCO also facilitates basic and applied research related to phenology, the development of decision-support tools for resource managers and planners, and the design of educational and outreach materials

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2004

Quality of water on the Prairie Band Potawatomi Reservation, northeastern Kansas, May 2001 through August 2003

Water-quality samples were collected from 20 surface-water sites and 11 ground-water sites on the Prairie Band Potawatomi Reservation in northeastern Kansas in an effort to describe existing water-quality conditions on the reservation and to compare water-quality conditions to results from previous reports published as part of a multiyear cooperative study with the Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation. Water is a valuable resource to the Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation as tribal members use the streams draining the reservation, Soldier, Little Soldier, and South Cedar Creeks, to fulfill subsistence hunting and fishing needs and as the tribe develops an economic base on the reservation. Samples were collected once at 20 surface-water monitoring sites during June 2001, and quarterly samples were collected at 5 of the 20 monitoring sites from May 2001 through August 2003. Ground-water-quality samples were collected once from seven wells and twice from four wells during April through May 2003 and in August 2003. Surface-water-quality samples collected from May through August 2001 were analyzed for physical properties, nutrients, pesticides, fecal indicator bacteria, and total suspended solids. In November 2001, an additional analysis for dissolved solids, major ions, trace elements, and suspended-sediment concentration was added for surface-water samples. Ground-water samples were analyzed for physical properties, dissolved solids, major ions, nutrients, trace elements, pesticides, and fecal indicator bacteria. Chemical oxygen demand and volatile organic compounds were analyzed in a sample from one monitoring well located near a construction and demolition landfill on the reservation. Previous reports published as a part of this ongoing study identified total phosphorus, triazine herbicides, and fecal coliform bacteria as exceeding their respective water-quality criteria in surface water on the reservation. Previous ground-water assessments identified occasional sample concentrations of dissolved solids, sodium, sulfate, boron, iron, and manganese as exceeding their respective water-quality criteria. Forty percent of the 65 surface-water samples analyzed for total phosphorus exceeded the aquatic-life goal of 0.1 mg/L (milligrams per liter) established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Concentrations of dissolved solids and sodium occasionally exceeded USEPA Secondary Drinking-Water Regulations and Drinking-Water Advisory Levels, respectively. One of the 20 samples analyzed for atrazine concentrations exceeded the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 3.0 ?g/L (micrograms per liter) as an annual average established for drinking water by USEPA. A triazine herbicide screen was used on 63 surface-water samples, and triazine compounds were frequently detected. Triazine herbicides and their degradates are listed on the USEPA Contaminant Candidate List. Nitrite plus nitrate concentrations in two ground-water samples from one monitoring well exceeded the MCL of 10 mg/L established by USEPA for drinking water. Arsenic concentrations in two samples from one monitoring well also exceeded the proposed MCL of 10 ?g/L established by the USEPA for drinking water. Concentrations of dissolved solids and sulfate in some ground-water samples exceeded their respective Secondary Drinking-Water Regulations, and concentrations exceeded the taste threshold of the USEPA?s Drinking-Water Advisory Level for sodium. Consequently, in the event that ground water on the reservation is to be used as a drinking-water source, additional treatment may be necessary to remove excess dissolved solids, sulfate, and sodium.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2005

Water quality and hydrology of the Lac Vieux Desert watershed, Gogebic County, Michigan, and Vilas County, Wisconsin, 2002-04

Lac Vieux Desert is a prominent 6.6 square-mile lake that straddles the Michigan-Wisconsin border and forms the headwaters of the Wisconsin River. For generations, the Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians have used Lac Vieux Desert and the surrounding area for growing and harvesting wild rice, and hunting and fishing. The Lac Vieux Desert Band is concerned about the impact of lake-stage regulation on hydrology and ecology, and the impact on water quality of development along and near the shore, and recreational watercraft use and sport fishing. In 2005, the U.S. Geological Survey completed a water-resources investigation of the Lac Vieux Desert watershed in cooperation with the Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians. Water quality of Lac Vieux Desert is typical of many lakes in the northern United States. Trophic State Index calculations classify Lac Vieux Desert as a highly productive eutrophic lake. The pH of water in Lac Vieux Desert ranged from 6.5 to 9.5, and specific conductance ranged from 62 to 114 µs/cm. Chloride concentration was less than 1.5 mg/L, indicating little effect from septic-tank or road-salt input. Results indicate that the water can be classified as soft, with hardness concentrations reported as calcium carbonate ranging from 29 to 49 mg/L. Concentrations of calcium, magnesium, chloride, and other dissolved solids ranged from 47 to 77 mg/L. Alkalinity of Lac Vieux Desert ranged from 27 to 38 mg/L. Pervasive aquatic blooms, including a bloom noted during the September 2003 sampling, are apparently common in late summer. Biological productivity at Lac Vieux Desert does not appear to have changed appreciably between 1973 and 2004. In the current study, total phosphorus concentrations ranged from 0.01 to 0.064 mg/L and dissolved nitrite plus nitrate nitrogen concentrations ranged from at, or below detection limit to 0.052 mg/L. Overabundance of nutrients in Lac Vieux Desert, particularly nitrogen and phosphorus, could result in considerable degradation in lake-water quality. The estimated water balance includes the following inputs from the surrounding watershed: direct precipitation (35 percent); runoff, composed of streamflow and overland flow (50 percent); and ground-water flow (15 percent). Outputs from Lac Vieux Desert include streamflow into the Wisconsin River (68 percent) and evaporation from the lake surface (32 percent). Seasonal regulation of Lac Vieux Desert outflow results in an artificially high lake stage throughout the year, except from late winter to very early spring, prior to snowmelt and runoff. Regulation of Lac Vieux Desert outflow causes Wisconsin River streamflow to be artificially low during spring and summer and artificially high in fall and winter. Recent studies indicate that lake-level regulation over the past century may have affected wild rice growth and propagation in Lac Vieux Desert. As per licensing agreement between the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Wisconsin Valley Improvement Company (operators of the dam at the outlet), the maximum lake level of Lac Vieux Desert was lowered about 0.8 feet to investigate the relation between lake-level regulation and propagation of wild rice from 2003 through 2012. Recent plantings of wild rice by the Lac Vieux Desert Band have been successful, indicating that suitable habitat and hydrologic regime were present in 2004-05.

Michigan, Wisconsin↗