DOCSLIB.ORG

Developing Research Priorities for Lake Whitefish in the Upper Great

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Developing Research Priorities for Lake Whitefish in the Upper Great DEVELOPING RESEARCH PRIORITIES FOR LAKE WHITEFISH IN THE UPPER GREAT LAKES: RESULTS OF A WORKSHOP SPONSORED BY THE GREAT LAKES FISHERY TRUST AND GREAT LAKES FISHERY COMMISSION Michigan State University February 27-28, 2018 Michigan Sea Grant Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 3 Workshop Proceedings ................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 3 Workshop Goals and Desired Outcomes ............................................................................. 4 Presentations ....................................................................................................................... 4 Impacts of Whitefish Decline on the Tribal Commercial Fishery ..................................... 4 Lake Huron Lake Whitefish Status and Trends ................................................................ 5 Lake Michigan Lake Whitefish Status and Trends ............................................................ 7 Lake Superior Lake Whitefish Status and Trends ............................................................. 8 Lower Trophic Levels ........................................................................................................ 9 Factors affecting recruitment to fisheries and management implications ................... 11 Survey of Lake Whitefish Research in the Upper Great Lakes: 2007-2017 ................... 13 Facilitated Discussions ....................................................................................................... 13 Management Option Information Gaps ..................................................................... 16 Prioritization ............................................................................................................... 18 Next Steps ................................................................................................................................. 20 References ................................................................................................................................ 20 Appendix 1: Workshop Attendee Contact Information ................................................................ 21 Appendix 2: Compiled Research Activities ................................................................................... 25 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 26 Methods .................................................................................................................................... 27 Results ....................................................................................................................................... 27 References .................................................................................................................................... 30 Enclosures ..................................................................................................................................... 31 Enclosure 1: List of People Contacted for Participation in Survey ........................................... 33 Enclosure 2: Survey Form ......................................................................................................... 35 Enclosure 3: Summary of Aggregated Survey Responses ......................................................... 36 Enclosure 4: Individual Survey Responses, Grouped by Lake ................................................... 40 Enclosure 5: Individual Survey Responses, Grouped by Purpose of Study .............................. 51 Appendix 3: Annotated Bibliography ............................................................................................ 67 2 Executive Summary Lake whitefish stocks have declined dramatically in northern Lakes Huron and Michigan, resulting in commercial catch rates and yield that are some of the lowest in the past three decades. The exact cause(s) for these declines are uncertain, but prolonged poor recruitment seems to be a primary driver of the observed decreases in stock size. Fishery management agencies are struggling to understand why recruitment has been so poor, while also recognizing that management actions are needed. In the short term, a synthesis of existing data that explores possible mechanisms explaining observed trends in lake whitefish recruitment and where the recruitment bottleneck may be occurring is needed because some management decisions are expected to be made before new research is completed. These data are largely comprised of state, provincial, tribal, and federal agency fishery-dependent and fishery- independent assessments that provide information about lake whitefish stock dynamics and are currently used to inform catch-at-age models. The single largest question managers have right now focuses on identifying those conditions that were historically favorable for lake whitefish recruitment in the mid-1990s and understanding what role invasive species and disease, most notably dreissenid mussels, round goby, and VHS, coupled with ongoing nutrient reductions, have played in declining recruitment and year-class strength since the mid-2000s. Workshop participants identified a series of potential management risks, management options, and information gaps that could be considered for future research to inform management, with a discussion culminating in the development of a list of short- and long-term research needs. Workshop Proceedings Introduction Lake whitefish stocks in northern lakes Huron and Michigan have sustained important commercial and subsistence fisheries during the past 30 years. However, lake whitefish stocks, and, along with them lake whitefish catch and catch rates, have declined substantially since 2013. At the same time, lake whitefish recruitment and harvest from Lake Superior has been relatively stable. Increasing concern from fishers and policy makers has led managers to recognize that action options must be collectively considered. With this background in mind, fishery managers approached the Great Lakes Fishery Trust (GLFT) and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission (Commission) in fall 2017 to develop a workshop that would focus on a common set of research priorities that could then be addressed through funding by the Great Lakes Fishery Trust, and other fishery research funding sources. The research priorities developed from this workshop, and the resulting research results, will assist fishery managers to determine whether or how any management actions can assist future recovery of lake whitefish stocks. 3 Workshop Goals and Desired Outcomes In February 2018, the Great Lakes Fishery Trust and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission hosted a workshop to understand recent trends in lake whitefish populations across the three upper lakes; engage fishery managers in discussion about important management risks they face; identify their needs to address those risks; determine information gaps; and develop possible priorities for research and management action. Participants representing state, provincial, federal, and tribal managers, biologists, and researchers, along with experts from academia, were invited to participate (Appendix 1). Workshop discussions were primarily focused on needs of fishery managers, specifically lake committee and Technical Fisheries Committee members. Expertise from other participants served as a valuable resource throughout the workshop. Presentations The workshop ran for 1.5 days and began with a description of the problem. Three presentations followed that gave an overview of stock status and recruitment trends on lakes Huron, Michigan, and Superior, with short discussions after each presentation. The session culminated in an examination of the similarities and differences of the three upper lakes. Additional presentations provided background on changes to lower trophic levels since 2000 and their current status; a summary of recruitment and possible management implications; and a recap of ongoing research. Day one ended with facilitated discussions identifying management risks and needs; during day two participants identified information gaps, then described and prioritized short- and long-term research needs. Presenters have permitted the sharing of their respective slide decks, which are linked to each presentation title. Impacts of Whitefish Decline on the Tribal Commercial Fishery – Tom Gorenflo (CORA) Gorenflo described the urgent need to address declines in lake whitefish recruitment, recognizing that those declines impact present management and will likely impact renegotiation of the terms of the Consent Decree in 2020. Lake whitefish is the mainstay of the tribal fishery and is important to the tribes both economically and culturally. The impetus for the workshop was to focus research so as to answer several questions including: 1) What are the causes of lake whitefish recruitment declines?, 2) What is the prognosis for ‘recovery’ of lake whitefish?, 3) What are feasible management options to pursue?, and 4) What are priority research, funding, and synthesis items that need to be pursued in the short- and long-term to inform management options? In 1979 a judge affirmed the right of the tribe to fish and self-regulate in the ceded waters
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Eastslope Sculpin (Cottus Sp.) in Alberta
    COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the "Eastslope" Sculpin Cottus sp. in Canada St. Mary and Milk River populations THREATENED 2005 COSEWIC COSEPAC COMMITTEE ON THE STATUS OF COMITÉ SUR LA SITUATION ENDANGERED WILDLIFE DES ESPÈCES EN PÉRIL IN CANADA AU CANADA COSEWIC status reports are working documents used in assigning the status of wildlife species suspected of being at risk. This report may be cited as follows: COSEWIC 2005. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the "eastslope" sculpin (St. Mary and Milk River population) Cottus sp. in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 30 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm). Production note: This document is based on a report by Susan M. Pollard prepared for Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Division and the Alberta Conservation Association. The original report was published as Alberta Wildlife Status Report No. 51, February 2004, and is entitled Status of the St. Mary Shorthead Sculpin (provisionally Cottus bairdi punctulatus) in Alberta. Funding for the preparation of the original status report was provided by the Alberta Conservation Association and the Fish and Wildlife Division of Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. This document was overseen and edited by Bob Campbell, the COSEWIC Freshwater Fish Species Specialist Subcommittee Co- chair. For additional copies contact: COSEWIC Secretariat c/o Canadian Wildlife Service Environment Canada Ottawa, ON K1A 0H3 Tel.: (819) 997-4991 / (819) 953-3215 Fax: (819) 994-3684 E-mail: COSEWIC/[email protected] http://www.cosewic.gc.ca Ếgalement disponible en français sous le titre Ếvaluation et Rapport de situation du COSEPAC sur le chabot du versant est (populations des rivières St.
    [Show full text]
  • Consent Agenda 2020.01.20
    THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ST. JOSEPH CONSENT AGENDA JANUARY 20,2021 I a. Ken Leffler Receive Re: Request to open part of the walking trail for golf carts. 2-* a. Town of Lincoln Receive Re: Supporting Resolution re: Cannabis Retail Stores ;-t c. Region of Peel / Township of Huron-Kinloss Support Re: Property Tax Exemptions for Veteran Clubs 34a Loyalist Township Support Re: funding for community Groups and service clubs affected by pandemic lo ^t(e City of St. Catharines Receive Re: Development Approval Requirements for Landfills (Bill 197) 1213. Corporation of the Municipality of West Grey Support Re: Schedule 8 of the Provincial Budget Bill22g, Support and Recovery from COVtn- 19 Act tq - lJ g. Town of Kingsville / United Counties of Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry Support Re: Letter of Support for Small Businesses Itf 9 h. Municipality if Mississippi Mills Support Re: Request for Revisions to Municipal Elections Huron North Community Economic Alliance Receive 2cat' Re: Member Update for November 2020 eej General Hillier Receive Re: COVID-I9 Vaccination update 8?24U. Peter Julian, Mp - New Westminster - Burnaby Support Re: Canada Pharmacare Act M,d Solicitor General Receive Re: Community Safety and Well-Being Plan deadline extension Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Receive *l-X^.(J/ ' Re: Updates to Ontario Wildlife Damage Compensation Program (OWDCP) Qq$A. Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Receive Re: Amendments to Drainage Act A4'o Ministry of Solicitor General Receive Re: Declaration of Provincial Emergency 3v41p Ministry of Transportation Receive Re: connecting the North: A Draft Transportation Plan for Northem ontario J6-L{l U.
    [Show full text]
  • Burbot Management Plan
    BURBOT MANAGEMENT PLAN DEPARTMENT OF INLAND FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE DIVISION OF FISHERIES AND HATCHERIES PREPARED BY SCOTT A. ROY ASSISTANT REGIONAL FISHERIES BIOLOGIST REGION E MARCH 2001 BURBOT LIFE HISTORY The burbot, Lota lota (Linnaeus), is a unique member of the cod family. It is the only species in the family, which spends its entire life in fresh water. However, the burbot is similar to its marine relatives in that its distribution is circumpolar. It can be found in cool, fresh waters throughout northern Europe, Asia and North America. In North America its range extends as far south as the northern tier of States across the United States. In Maine, the burbot is commonly known as the cusk, although in other areas it is also called the ling, eelpout, loche and lawyer. Unlike the salmonids and Maine’s other coldwater species, the burbot is not noted for its grace and beauty. The body is elongate, almost eel-shaped, with long, soft-rayed dorsal and anal fins that meet a rounded tail. Although it is smooth and slimy to the touch, the skin is embedded with very small, cycloid scales. The head of the burbot is broad and somewhat flattened. It has a large mouth containing several rows of small teeth on the jaws. A single, whisker-like barbell protrudes from the tip of the chin. There are no obvious external differences between males and females. In general, adults are olive brown to dark brown on the back and sides. This background is overlaid with distinctive patterns of dark brown or black markings and spots.
    [Show full text]
  • Edna Assay Development
    Environmental DNA assays available for species detection via qPCR analysis at the U.S.D.A Forest Service National Genomics Center for Wildlife and Fish Conservation (NGC). Asterisks indicate the assay was designed at the NGC. This list was last updated in June 2021 and is subject to change. Please contact [email protected] with questions. Family Species Common name Ready for use? Mustelidae Martes americana, Martes caurina American and Pacific marten* Y Castoridae Castor canadensis American beaver Y Ranidae Lithobates catesbeianus American bullfrog Y Cinclidae Cinclus mexicanus American dipper* N Anguillidae Anguilla rostrata American eel Y Soricidae Sorex palustris American water shrew* N Salmonidae Oncorhynchus clarkii ssp Any cutthroat trout* N Petromyzontidae Lampetra spp. Any Lampetra* Y Salmonidae Salmonidae Any salmonid* Y Cottidae Cottidae Any sculpin* Y Salmonidae Thymallus arcticus Arctic grayling* Y Cyrenidae Corbicula fluminea Asian clam* N Salmonidae Salmo salar Atlantic Salmon Y Lymnaeidae Radix auricularia Big-eared radix* N Cyprinidae Mylopharyngodon piceus Black carp N Ictaluridae Ameiurus melas Black Bullhead* N Catostomidae Cycleptus elongatus Blue Sucker* N Cichlidae Oreochromis aureus Blue tilapia* N Catostomidae Catostomus discobolus Bluehead sucker* N Catostomidae Catostomus virescens Bluehead sucker* Y Felidae Lynx rufus Bobcat* Y Hylidae Pseudocris maculata Boreal chorus frog N Hydrocharitaceae Egeria densa Brazilian elodea N Salmonidae Salvelinus fontinalis Brook trout* Y Colubridae Boiga irregularis Brown tree snake*
    [Show full text]
  • Sport-Fish-Identification.Pdf
    Walleye Walleye have two distinct fins on their back, the first with large spines. Lake Sturgeon They have a yellow-olive back, brassy, silvery sides with yellow spots, a white underside, and white on the lower lobe of the tail. Dusky vertical Lake Sturgeon are a Threatened Species due to population size and bars are often found on the body as well. concerns with viability. Lake Sturgeon have a large brown or grey body covered with tough, leather- like tissue and five rows of bony plates. They have a shark-like, upturned tail and a pointed snout with four barbels. Sauger Lake Whitefish are olive-green to blue on the back, with silvery sides.They Sauger are a Threatened Species due to hybridization, habitat Lakehave a small Whitefish mouth below a rounded snout, and a deeply forked tail. degradation and overharvest. Sauger are golden olive on the back with silver-yellow sides and a white underside. They also have a large spiny dorsal fin, distinct rows of spots on the dorsal fins and three or four dusky vertical bars on the body. Mountain Whitefish have large scales, no spots and small mouths with no Burbot Mountainteeth. Their general Whitefish body colour is a bronze-white or greenish white. Burbot have a slim, brownish black body with smooth skin, a flattened head, and a fin that stretches along the back half of the body. Distinctive barbels hang from the lower jaw and nostrils. Goldeye Northern Pike Goldeye have prominent eyes with bright yellow pupils, a blunt head, and Northern Pike are a long, slender fish with duck-like jaws and a long, flat a deep, compressed body.
    [Show full text]
  • (Coregonus Lavaretus (L.)) Caused by Competitor Invasion
    Speciation Reversal in European Whitefish (Coregonus lavaretus (L.)) Caused by Competitor Invasion Shripathi Bhat1*, Per-Arne Amundsen1, Rune Knudsen1, Karl Øystein Gjelland3, Svein-Erik Fevolden1, Louis Bernatchez2, Kim Præbel1 1 Department of Arctic and Marine Biology, University of Tromsø, Tromsø, Norway, 2 Institut de Biologie Inte´grative et des Syste`mes (IBIS), Universite´ Laval, Que´bec, Canada, 3 Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, Tromsø, Norway Abstract Invasion of exotic species has caused the loss of biodiversity and imparts evolutionary and ecological changes in the introduced systems. In northern Fennoscandia, European whitefish (Coregonus lavaretus (L.)) is a highly polymorphic species displaying adaptive radiations into partially reproductively isolated and thus genetically differentiated sympatric morphs utilizing the planktivorous and benthivorous food niche in many lakes. In 1993, Lake Skrukkebukta was invaded by vendace (Coregonus albula (L.)) which is a zooplanktivorous specialist. The vendace displaced the densely rakered whitefish from its preferred pelagic niche to the benthic habitat harbouring the large sparsely rakered whitefish. In this study, we investigate the potential influence of the vendace invasion on the breakdown of reproductive isolation between the two whitefish morphs. We inferred the genotypic and phenotypic differentiation between the two morphs collected at the arrival (1993) and 15 years after (2008) the vendace invasion using 16 microsatellite loci and gill raker numbers, the most distinctive adaptive phenotypic trait between them. The comparison of gill raker number distributions revealed two modes growing closer over 15 years following the invasion. Bayesian analyses of genotypes revealed that the two genetically distinct whitefish morphs that existed in 1993 had collapsed into a single population in 2008.
    [Show full text]
  • First Record of a Coregonid Fish Species, Coregenus Albula (Linnaeus, 1758) (Salmoniformes: Salmonidae) in Aktaş Lake Shared Between Turkey and Georgia
    J. Black Sea/Mediterranean Environment Vol. 25, No. 3: 325-332 (2019) SHORT COMMUNICATION First record of a coregonid fish species, Coregenus albula (Linnaeus, 1758) (Salmoniformes: Salmonidae) in Aktaş Lake shared between Turkey and Georgia Sedat V. Yerli Department of Biology, Hacettepe University, SAL, Beytepe, Ankara, TURKEY Corresponding author: [email protected] Abstract The genus Coregenus (Salmoniformes: Salmonidae) was recently considered not to be represented in Turkey. European cisco or vendace, Coregonus albula (Linnaeus, 1758) was reported for the first time for Turkey in this article with fifteen samples in Aktaş Lake, Ardahan. This species should be added to the checklist of Turkish fish fauna. Turkish name is proposed as “Akbalık” for this species. Keywords: Coregonus albula, first record, Aktaş Lake, Kartsakhi, alkaline lake, Georgia, Turkey Received: 30.10.2019, Accepted: 26.11.2019 Vendace or European cisco Coregonus albula (Linnaeus, 1758) is a native species for northern Europe. Berg (1948) reported the distribution of this species its morphological measurements in the former USSR and adjacent countries. Froese and Pauly (2019) summarized the natural distribution of vendace as Baltic basin, several lakes of upper Volga drainage; some lakes of White Sea basin and North Sea basin east of Elbe drainage; anadromous in Gulf of Finland and marine in northernmost freshened part of Gulf of Bothnia between Finland and Sweden; in Lake Inari, northern Finland; lower Rhine (now extirpated). The vendace was introduced, intentionally in some countries in Europe and United States of America. Vendace was introduced in 1959, 1982-1987 in the Irtysh River Basin and in 1960-61 in Lake Balkhash in Kazakhstan (Mitrofanov and Petr 1999).
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation and Ecology of Marine Forage Fishes— Proceedings of a Research Symposium, September 2012
    Conservation and Ecology of Marine Forage Fishes— Proceedings of a Research Symposium, September 2012 Open-File Report 2013–1035 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover: Upper Left: Herring spawn, BC coast – Milton Love, “Certainly More Than You Want to Know About the Fishes of the Pacific Coast,” reproduced with permission. Left Center: Tufted Puffin and sand lance (Smith Island, Puget Sound) – Joseph Gaydos, SeaDoc Society. Right Center: Symposium attendants – Tami Pokorny, Jefferson County Water Resources. Upper Right: Buried sand lance – Milton Love, “Certainly More Than You Want to Know About the Fishes of the Pacific Coast,” reproduced with permission. Background: Pacific sardine, CA coast – Milton Love, “Certainly More Than You Want to Know About the Fishes of the Pacific Coast,” reproduced with permission. Conservation and Ecology of Marine Forage Fishes— Proceedings of a Research Symposium, September 2012 Edited by Theresa Liedtke, U.S. Geological Survey; Caroline Gibson, Northwest Straits Commission; Dayv Lowry, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife; and Duane Fagergren, Puget Sound Partnership Open-File Report 2013–1035 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior KEN SALAZAR, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Marcia K. McNutt, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2013 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov Suggested citation: Liedtke, Theresa, Gibson, Caroline, Lowry, Dayv, and Fagergren, Duane, eds., 2013, Conservation and Ecology of Marine Forage Fishes—Proceedings of a Research Symposium, September 2012: U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Status and Extent of Aquatic Protected Areas in the Great Lakes
    Status and Extent of Aquatic Protected Areas in the Great Lakes Scott R. Parker, Nicholas E. Mandrak, Jeff D. Truscott, Patrick L. Lawrence, Dan Kraus, Graham Bryan, and Mike Molnar Introduction The Laurentian Great Lakes are immensely important to the environmental, economic, and social well-being of both Canada and the United States (US). They form the largest surface freshwater system in the world. At over 30,000 km long, their mainland and island coastline is comparable in length to that of the contiguous US marine coastline (Government of Canada and USEPA 1995; Gronewold et al. 2013). With thousands of native species, including many endemics, the lakes are rich in biodiversity (Pearsall 2013). However, over the last century the Great Lakes have experienced profound human-caused changes, includ- ing those associated with land use changes, contaminants, invasive species, climate change, over-fishing, and habitat loss (e.g., Bunnell et al. 2014; Smith et al. 2015). It is a challenging context in terms of conservation, especially within protected areas established to safeguard species and their habitat. According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), a protected area is “a clearly defined geographical space, recognised, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associat- ed ecosystem services and cultural values” (Dudley 2008). Depending on the management goals, protected areas can span the spectrum of IUCN categories from highly protected no- take reserves to multiple-use areas (Table 1). The potential values and benefits of protected areas are well established, including conserving biodiversity; protecting ecosystem structures and functions; being a focal point and context for public engagement, education, and good governance; supporting nature-based recreation and tourism; acting as a control or reference site for scientific research; providing a positive spill-over effect for fisheries; and helping to mitigate and adapt to climate change (e.g., Lemieux et al.
    [Show full text]
  • NOAA Great Lakes Charts Catalog Reference
    Charts on the Great Lakes and Adjacent Waters 96° 94° Data On the Great Lakes System Chart Number Title Scale Chart Number Title Scale Chart Number Title Scale LAKE LAKE LAKE LAKE LAKE LAKE 14500 Great Lakes—Lake Champlain to Lake of the Woods 1:1,500,000 14847 Toledo Harbor 1:20,000 14915 Little Bay de Noc 1:30,000 GENERAL LAKE DIMENSION SUPERIOR MICHIGAN HURON ST. CLAIR ERIE ONTARIO ST. LAWRENCE RIVER Entrance Channel 1:40,000 14916 SMALL-CRAFT BOOK CHART Length in miles 350 307 206 26 241 193 14770 Morristown, N.Y. to Butternut Bay, Ont. 1:15,000 14848 Detroit River 1:30,000 Lake Winnebago and Lower Fox River (book of 34 charts) Various 14850 Lake St. Clair 1:60,000 14917 Menominee and Marinette Harbors 1:15,000 14500 Breadth in miles 160 118(1) 183(2) 24 57 53 14771 Butternut Bay, Ont., to Ironsides lsland., N.Y. 1:15,000 Length in coastline (including islands) 2,730 1,640 3,830(3) 257 871 712 14772 Ironsides lsland, N.Y., to Bingham lsland, Ont. 1:15,000 14852 St. Clair River 1:40,000 14918 Head of Green Bay, including Fox River below De Pere 1:25,000 Area in square miles 14773 Gananoque, Ont., to St. Lawrence Park. N.Y. 1:15,000 Head of St. Clair River 1:15,000 Green Bay 1:10,000 1450 Water Surface, United States 20,600(4) 22,300(5) 9,150(6) 198(7) 4,980 3,560(8) 14774 Round lsland, N.Y., and Gananoque, Ont., to Wolfe l., Ont.
    [Show full text]
  • Bering Sea Integrated Ecosystem Research Program
    NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD BERING SEA INTEGRATED ECOSYSTEM RESEARCH PROGRAM FINAL REPORT Ichthyoplankton: horizontal, vertical, and temporal distribution of larvae and juveniles of Walleye Pollock, Pacific Cod, and Arrowtooth Flounder, and transport pathways between nursery areas NPRB BSIERP Project B53 Final Report Janet Duffy-Anderson1, Franz Mueter2, Nicola Hillgruber2, Ann Matarese1, Jeffrey Napp1, Lisa Eisner3, T. Smart4, 5, Elizabeth Siddon2, 1, Lisa De Forest1, Colleen Petrik2, 6 1Alaska Fisheries Science Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115, USA 2University of Alaska Fairbanks, School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, 17101 Point Lena Loop Road, Juneau, AK 99801 USA 3Ted Stevens Marine Research Institute, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 17109 Pt. Lena Loop Road, Juneau, AK 99801, USA 4School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195-5020, USA 5Present affiliation: Marine Resources Research Institute, South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Charleston, South Carolina 29422, USA 6Present affiliation: UC Santa Cruz, Institute of Marine Sciences, 110 Shaffer Rd., Santa Cruz, CA 95060, USA December 2014 1 Table of Contents Page Abstract ........................................................................................................................................................... 3 Study Chronology ..........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Coregonus Lavaretus Complex 1.4 Alternative Species Scientific Name 1.5 Common Name (In National Language) Whitefish 2
    European Community Directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora (92/43/EEC) Fourth Report by the United Kingdom under Article 17 on the implementation of the Directive from January 2013 to December 2018 Supporting documentation for the conservation status assessment for the species: S6353 ‐ WhitefishCoregonus ( lavaretus) SCOTLAND IMPORTANT NOTE ‐ PLEASE READ • The information in this document is a country‐level contribution to the UK Reporton the conservation status of this species, submitted to the European Commission aspart of the 2019 UK Reporting under Article 17 of the EU Habitats Directive. • The 2019 Article 17 UK Approach document provides details on how this supporting information was used to produce the UK Report. • The UK Report on the conservation status of this species is provided in a separate doc‐ ument. • The reporting fields and options used are aligned to those set out in the European Com‐ mission guidance. • Explanatory notes (where provided) by the country are included at the end. These pro‐ vide an audit trail of relevant supporting information. • Some of the reporting fields have been left blank because either: (i) there was insuffi‐ cient information to complete the field; (ii) completion of the field was not obligatory; (iii) the field was not relevant to this species (section 12 Natura 2000 coverage forAnnex II species) and/or (iv) the field was only relevant at UK‐level (sections 9 Future prospects and 10 Conclusions). • For technical reasons, the country‐level future trends for Range, Population and Habitat for the species are only available in a separate spreadsheet that contains all the country‐ level supporting information.
    [Show full text]