DOCSLIB.ORG

Spawning Aggregations in Lake Michigan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Spawning Aggregations in Lake Michigan Color profile: Disabled Composite Default screen 2290 Quantification of historic lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) spawning aggregations in Lake Michigan Kristine A. Dawson, Randy L. Eshenroder, Mark E. Holey, and Camille Ward Abstract: We used commercial catch reports to determine site-specific characteristics of lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) spawning aggregations in Michigan’s and Wisconsin’s waters of Lake Michigan before reproduction ceased in the 1950s. One hundred sites where annual catches exceeded 25 kg/year were identified. Two thirds of the catch was made in offshore waters and nearly half was made in the northeast sector of the lake. Catch was a better descriptor of the size of spawning aggregations than catch per unit effort (CPUE). CPUEs were not significantly different among onshore, offshore, and southern deepwater reefs. Spawning activity as measured by CPUE had peaked by the week beginning 29 October at all locations. Spawning aggregations were strongly clustered in the northeast section of the lake where Devonian rocks were subject to brecciation, i.e., fracturing and recementing following slumping. Areas zoned as refuges in the current lake trout rehabilitation plan account for 36% of the historical catch targeted at spawning aggregations. We recommend a refocusing of rehabilitation efforts in northern waters from sites where historical catches were modest to sites that produced the largest catches of lake trout aggregated for spawning. Résumé : Nous avons utilisé des rapports sur les captures commerciales pour déterminer les caractéristiques locales propres aux concentrations de géniteurs de touladi (Salvelinus namaycush) dans les eaux du lac Michigan (Michigan et Wisconsin) avant que n’y cesse la reproduction dans les années 1950. Nous avons repéré 100 sites pour lesquels les captures annuelles dépassaient 25 kg/an. Deux tiers des prises ont été faites au large et près de la moitié dans la partie nord-est du lac. Les captures constituaient un meilleur descripteur de la taille des concentrations de géniteurs que l’indice des captures par unité d’effort (CPUE). En effet, les CPUE des régions littorales, du milieu du lac ou des récifs en eaux profondes dans la partie sud ne présentaient pas de différences significatives. La fraye, mesurée d’après les CPUE, avait atteint son sommet la semaine du 29 octobre à tous les emplacements. Les concentrations de géniteurs étaient regroupées en grosses grappes dans la section nord-est du lac, là où des roches dévoniennes ont été soumises à la bréchification, c.-à-d. qu’elles ont été fracturées, ont glissé puis ont été recimentées. Les secteurs choisis comme refuges dans le plan actuel de rétablissement du touladi fournissaient 36% des captures antérieures qui visaient les concentrations de géniteurs. Nous recommandons de réorienter les efforts de rétablissement dans le secteur nord en délaissant les sites où les captures historiques étaient modestes au profit de ceux qui produisaient les plus importantes captures de touladi pendant les rassemblements de fraye. [Traduit par la Rédaction] Introduction it represented the single largest extirpation of a char in recorded history. Attempts to rehabilitate stocks began in the 1960s, Lake Michigan is the second largest of the Great Lakes in when programs to suppress sea lamprey and reintroduce lake volume and the third largest in surface area, but among the five trout were initiated. Reestablishing wild stocks has proven to lakes, it had the highest yields of lake trout (Salvelinus be more difficult than originally envisioned — a review of the namaycush) until stocks began collapsing in the 1940s. By the rehabilitation program by Holey et al. (1995) indicated that 1950s, lake trout were virtually extirpated from Lake Michigan, wild fish are scarce. a result of over a century of commercial fishing and of preda- The difficulty of rehabilitating a salmonine extirpated from tion by the sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus), which was first a large system, like Lake Michigan, is a function of the diver- seen in these waters in 1936 (Wells and McLain 1973). The sity of such populations which are understood to be composed loss of the lake trout from Lake Michigan was catastrophic — of many small, locally adapted stocks, each imprinted to a specific breeding site (see Goodier 1981). Lake trout spawn in the fall on rocky reefs, and their eggs incubate overwinter in Received March 5, 1996. Accepted February 28, 1997. interstices that protect them from predators and from being J13335 washed away. Lake trout rehabilitation in Lake Michigan is K.A. Dawson, R.L. Eshenroder,1 and C. Ward. Great Lakes based on the assumption that hatchery-reared fish will seek out Fishery Commission, 2100 Commonwealth Blvd., Suite 209, and reproduce on numerous spawning areas formerly used by Ann Arbor, MI 48105, U.S.A. the native stocks (Foster 1984). The near lack of wild juveniles M.E. Holey. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Fishery in Lake Michigan indicates that a serious life history bottle- Resources Office, 1015 Challenger Court, Green Bay, neck occurs. Holey et al. (1995) have speculated that hatchery- WI 54311, U.S.A. origin lake trout may not be spawning on the formerly used 1 Author to whom all correspondence should be addressed. reefs, but their hypothesis cannot be tested without compara- e-mail: [email protected] tive information on the historical distribution of spawners and Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 54: 2290–2302 (1997) © 1997 NRC Canada F97-136.CHP Thu Dec 04 10:47:44 1997 Color profile: Disabled Composite Default screen Dawson et al. 2291 a better understanding of the reproductive biology of this spe- closed (spawning) season for the purpose of collecting spawn for cies in large systems. hatcheries. The closed season for lake trout fishing in Michigan’s Because research programs on Lake Michigan were small waters of Lake Michigan during 1929–1932 extended from 20 at the time stocks were collapsing, information on the histori- October to 22 November (Brege and Kevern 1978). Without the per- cal distribution of spawning lake trout is limited. Efforts have mit system, no catch records would be available for 34 days during the middle of the lake trout spawning period. been made since the 1970s to document the locations of the We would have preferred to evaluate simultaneous years in former spawning sites. Peck (1979) identified spawning sites Wisconsin and Michigan, but because the daily catch reporting sys- in Michigan’s waters using information from biologists who tem did not begin in Wisconsin until 2 years after the permit fishery had interviewed commercial fishers, and Coberly and Horrall was banned in Michigan, this approach was not possible. To mini- (1980) used other interview data to map spawning sites in mize the time separation with the Michigan data, we compiled catch Wisconsin’s waters of Lake Michigan. Goodyear et al. (1982) reports for the nearest, comparable 4-year period in Wisconsin, which and Thibodeau and Kelso (1990) compiled these and other began in 1934. Wisconsin also had a permit system for fishing spawn- reports for the entire Great Lakes. Side-scan sonar and other ing lake trout; it allowed fishing during the 15 October to 20 November methods have been used to physically map substrates on a few closed season. We did not include commercial catch data from Illinois well-known spawning sites in Lake Michigan (Edsall et al. and Indiana because the catch reporting system in these states did not begin until 1950 (Hile 1962), when the collapse of the lake trout 1989; Edsall et al. 1995). None of these studies quantified the population in Lake Michigan was too far advanced for our analysis. historical distribution of spawners among sites, even though We used a combination of criteria to identify gillnet hauls that such information should reveal the relative importance of in- were targeted at spawning lake trout because catch report forms com- dividual sites and should allow for comparison with the present pleted by commercial fishers did not require such information. Some distributions of hatchery-reared lake trout. A comparison lake trout were caught as bycatch in gill nets set for lake whitefish, could be used, for instance, to determine whether current man- and immature lake trout large enough to be marketable were also agement zones for lake trout rehabilitation are appropriate. targeted. The location of each haul was plotted on a National Oceano- Although recollections of commercial fishers have been graphic and Atmospheric Administration lake chart, and fishing tar- valuable in identifying qualitative characteristics of lake trout geted at spawners was inferred if (i) the depths fished were less than spawning sites in Lake Michigan, systematically collected re- 40 m (except on southern reefs in the middle of the lake) or a shallow- cords of their catch and effort have the potential to quantify water reef was nearby and (ii) lake whitefish were not present or were rare in the haul. These criteria are based on the idea that the spawner such differences. In this study, we use records from Wisconsin fishery started when mature lake trout began to aggregate in shallow and Michigan commercial fishers to establish (1) the distribu- water near spawning reefs and that lake whitefish, which begin tion during the 1920s and 1930s of lake trout yields from spawning later, and immature lake trout remained in deeper water. In spawning aggregations, (2) the utility of catch per unit effort using the 40-m cutoff, we acknowledge uncertainty about just how (CPUE) as an alternative measure of spawning aggregations, deep lean-type lake trout spawned in Lake Michigan. The best spawn- (3) the temporal pattern of spawner aggregations, and (4) the ing habitat observed on Julian’s Reef (Lake Michigan) was as deep as distribution of spawning aggregations in relation to bedrock 34 m (Edsall et al.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lake Michigan Stocking Report 2010
    Lake Michigan Committee Meeting Ypsilanti, Michigan March 23-24, 2011 Salmonid Stocking Totals for Lake Michigan 1976-2010 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Green Bay National Fish & Wildlife Conservation Office 2661 Scott Tower Drive New Franken, WI 54229 The Great Lakes Fishery Commission’s fish stocking database is designed to summarize federal, provincial, state, and tribal fish stocking events. This database contains agency provided records dating back to the 1950’s and is available online at: (http://www.glfc.org/fishstocking/). The purpose of this report is to briefly summarize the information in the GLFC database for Lake Michigan federal lake trout stocking and stocking rates of all salmonids within state waters of Lake Michigan (Table 1). A summary of lake trout stocking locations, described by priority area in A Fisheries Management Implementation Strategy for the Rehabilitation of Lake Trout in Lake Michigan (Dexter et al. 2011), is also included (Figure 1, Table 2). Total numbers of Service stocked lake trout are shown by statistical district for the time series 1976 – 2010 in Table 3 while salmonid stocking totals for each state are described in Tables 4-7 (Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan, respectively). 2 Figure 1. Map showing the first and second priority stocking areas contained in the new lake trout restoration guide and implementation strategy. Figure 1. First and 2nd priority areas as described in A Fisheries Management Implementation Strategy for the Rehabilitation of Lake Trout in Lake Michigan (Dexter et al. 2011). 3 2010 stocking overview: 12.3 million salmonids (combined species) were stocked in Lake Michigan in 2010, (Table 1).
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Michigan Part 1 a Publication of the Great Lakes Sport Fishing Council May 2019 Vol
    Inland Seas Angler GREAT LAKES BASIN REPORT Special Report – Lake Michigan Part 1 A Publication of the Great Lakes Sport Fishing Council May 2019 http://www.great-lakes.org Vol. 30, No. 5.3a Highlights of the Annual Lake Committee Meetings Great Lakes Fishery Commission proceedings, Ypsilanti, MI This third of a series of annual special reports is a two-part summary of Lake Michigan. This lake committee report is from the annual Lake Committee meetings hosted by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission in March 2019. We encourage reproduction with the appropriate credit to the GLSFC and the agencies involved. Our thanks to IL DNR, IN DNR, MI DNR; USFWS; USGS and the many other DNR biologists who make this all happen, and also thanks to the staffs of the GLFC and USGS for their contributions to these science documents. Thanks also to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, its staff, Bob Lamb & Marc Gaden, for their efforts in again convening and hosting the Lake Committee meetings in Ypsilanti, MI. Lake Michigan – Part 1 Index of Reports Status and Trends of Prey Fish Populations in Lake Michigan, 2018 (USGS) pgs 2 – 10 Summary of 2018 Salmonine Stocking in Lake Michigan pgs 10 – 12 Harvest of Fishes from Lake Michigan during 2018 pgs 12 – 19 Status of Yellow Perch in Lake Michigan, 2018 pgs 20 – 22 Highlights . Age distribution of alewives remained truncated with no alewife age exceeding 5 years . Bloater biomass was 2.60 kg/ha in 2018, unchanged from 2017, but still only 14% of the long-term average. Round goby biomass was 1.25 kg/ha in 2018, the 3rd largest estimate in the time series .
    [Show full text]
  • 22 AUG 2021 Index Acadia Rock 14967
    19 SEP 2021 Index 543 Au Sable Point 14863 �� � � � � 324, 331 Belle Isle 14976 � � � � � � � � � 493 Au Sable Point 14962, 14963 �� � � � 468 Belle Isle, MI 14853, 14848 � � � � � 290 Index Au Sable River 14863 � � � � � � � 331 Belle River 14850� � � � � � � � � 301 Automated Mutual Assistance Vessel Res- Belle River 14852, 14853� � � � � � 308 cue System (AMVER)� � � � � 13 Bellevue Island 14882 �� � � � � � � 346 Automatic Identification System (AIS) Aids Bellow Island 14913 � � � � � � � 363 A to Navigation � � � � � � � � 12 Belmont Harbor 14926, 14928 � � � 407 Au Train Bay 14963 � � � � � � � � 469 Benson Landing 14784 � � � � � � 500 Acadia Rock 14967, 14968 � � � � � 491 Au Train Island 14963 � � � � � � � 469 Benton Harbor, MI 14930 � � � � � 381 Adams Point 14864, 14880 �� � � � � 336 Au Train Point 14969 � � � � � � � 469 Bete Grise Bay 14964 � � � � � � � 475 Agate Bay 14966 �� � � � � � � � � 488 Avon Point 14826� � � � � � � � � 259 Betsie Lake 14907 � � � � � � � � 368 Agate Harbor 14964� � � � � � � � 476 Betsie River 14907 � � � � � � � � 368 Agriculture, Department of� � � � 24, 536 B Biddle Point 14881 �� � � � � � � � 344 Ahnapee River 14910 � � � � � � � 423 Biddle Point 14911 �� � � � � � � � 444 Aids to navigation � � � � � � � � � 10 Big Bay 14932 �� � � � � � � � � � 379 Baby Point 14852� � � � � � � � � 306 Air Almanac � � � � � � � � � � � 533 Big Bay 14963, 14964 �� � � � � � � 471 Bad River 14863, 14867 � � � � � � 327 Alabaster, MI 14863 � � � � � � � � 330 Big Bay 14967 �� � � � � � � � � � 490 Baileys
    [Show full text]
  • State of Michigan
    MICHIGAN The Status of Lighthouses MICHIGAN’S LIGHTHOUSES November 1998 NAME S TATI O N LIGHT OTHER IMPORTANT DATES NATIONAL REGISTER COUNTY NEAREST SITING LOCATION DESCRIPTION OWNERSHIP LESSEE OPEN TO PUBLIC EST. CONST. CITY 1 Alpena Light Station 1877 1914 Determined eligible by USCG; Alpena Alpena Breakwater NE side of entrance to U.S.C.G. No SHPO concurs 2 AuSable (Big Sable) Light Station 1874 1874 1909-Addition to keeper’s house Listed 5/23/78 Alger Grand Marais Land based On AuSable Point, W U.S.C.G. Of Grand Marais 3 Beaver Island (Beaver Head) Light Station 1851 1858 1866-Keeper’s house const. Listed 12/29/78 Charlevoix St. James Land based S. Shore of Beaver Island Charlevoix P.S. 4 Beaver Island Harbor (St. James) Light Station 1852 1870 Determined eligible by USCG; Charlevoix St. James Land based N side of entrance to Beaver U.S.C.G. SHPO concurs Island Harbor 5 Bete Grise (Mendota) Light Station 1870 1895 Keweenaw Bete Grise Land based S. Side of entrance to Mendota Private No Canal 6 Big Bay Point Light Station 1896 1896 Listed 10/12/88 Marquette Big Bay Land based Big Bay Point, 24 miles Big Bay B & B Grounds (11-4) Tower NW of Marquette 1st Sunday, no Children 7 Big Sable Point (Grande Pt. AuSable) Light Station 1867 1867 1900-Tower encased in steel; 1905- Listed 8/4/83 Mason Ludington Land based Big Sable Pt. 8 miles NW U.S.C.G. Big Sable Pt. Light- watchroom encased of Ludington House Keepers Assoc.
    [Show full text]
  • Final 2012 NHLPA Report Noapxb.Pub
    GSA Office of Real Property Utilization and Disposal 2012 PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS REPORT NATIONAL HISTORIC LIGHTHOUSE PRESERVATION ACT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Lighthouses have played an important role in America’s For More Information history, serving as navigational aids as well as symbols of our rich cultural past. Congress passed the National Information about specific light stations in the Historic Lighthouse Preservation Act (NHLPA) in 2000 to NHLPA program is available in the appendices and establish a lighthouse preservation program that at the following websites: recognizes the cultural, recreational, and educational National Park Service Lighthouse Heritage: value of these iconic properties, especially for local http://www.nps.gov/history/maritime/lt_index.htm coastal communities and nonprofit organizations as stewards of maritime history. National Park Service Inventory of Historic Light Stations: http://www.nps.gov/maritime/ltsum.htm Under the NHLPA, historic lighthouses and light stations (lights) are made available for transfer at no cost to Federal agencies, state and local governments, and non-profit organizations (i.e., stewardship transfers). The NHLPA Progress To Date: NHLPA program brings a significant and meaningful opportunity to local communities to preserve their Since the NHLPA program’s inception in 2000, 92 lights maritime heritage. The program also provides have been transferred to eligible entities. Sixty-five substantial cost savings to the United States Coast percent of the transferred lights (60 lights) have been Guard (USCG) since the historic structures, expensive to conveyed through stewardship transfers to interested repair and maintain, are no longer needed by the USCG government or not-for-profit organizations, while 35 to meet its mission as aids to navigation.
    [Show full text]
  • Lighthouse Construction Dates Styles
    Lighthouses of Michigan Lighthouse Name Station Established Light Constructed Style Tower Fort Gratiot 1825 1829 Thunder Bay Island 1832 1832 Presque Isle (Old) 1840 1840 Beaver Island (Beaver Head) 1851 1851 tower attached to dwelling conical Waugoshance 1832 1851 Rock Harbor 1855 1855 tower attached to dwelling conical Charity Island 1857 1857 tower attached to dwelling conical Pointe Aux Barques 1848 1857 tower attached to dwelling conical Grand Traverse 1852 1858 schoolhouse (b) Point Betsie 1858 1858 tower attached to dwelling conical St. Clair Flats South Channel Rear Range 1859 1859 St. Clair Flats South Channel Front Range 1859 1859 Manitou Island 1850 1861 Steel Skeletal attached to dwelling Steel Skeletal Whitefish Point 1848 1861 Steel Skeletal attached to dwelling Steel Skeletal Reconstruction (1865-1877) Marquette Harbor 1853 1866 schoolhouse (a) Copper Harbor 1849 1866 schoolhouse (a) Peninsula Point 1866 1866 schoolhouse (a) Grand Island North 1854 1867 schoolhouse (a) Big Sable Point 1867 1867 tower attached to dwelling conical Gull Rock 1867 1867 schoolhouse (a) Sand Point (Escanaba) 1867 1867 schoolhouse (a) Ontonagon 1852 1867 schoolhouse (a) Granite Island 1868 1868 schoolhouse (a) Copper Harbor Rear Range 1868 1868 schoolhouse (b) Copper Harbor Front Range 1868 1868 n/a South Fox Island 1868 1868 schoolhouse (a) Bois Blanc Island 1829 1868 schoolhouse (a) Sturgeon Point 1869 1869 tower attached to dwelling conical McGulpin's Point 1869 1869 Tudor Beaver Island Harbor (St. James) 1852 1870 tower attached to dwelling conical Presque Isle Old Front Range 1870 1870 [small tower] Presque Isle Old Rear Range 1870 1870 schoolhouse (b) Grand Island East Channel 1870 1870 schoolhouse (a) Portage River (Jacobsville) 1856 1870 tower attached to dwelling conical Mission Point (Old) 1870 1870 schoolhouse (b) Eagle Harbor 1851 1871 Tudor Presque Isle (New) 1871 1871 tower attached to dwelling conical Point Iroquois 1855 1871 tower attached to dwelling conical South Manitou Island 1839 1872 tower attached to dwelling conical St.
    [Show full text]
  • Lighthouses – Clippings
    GREAT LAKES MARINE COLLECTION MILWAUKEE PUBLIC LIBRARY/WISCONSIN MARINE HISTORICAL SOCIETY MARINE SUBJECT FILES LIGHTHOUSE CLIPPINGS Current as of November 7, 2018 LIGHTHOUSE NAME – STATE - LAKE – FILE LOCATION Algoma Pierhead Light – Wisconsin – Lake Michigan - Algoma Alpena Light – Michigan – Lake Huron - Alpena Apostle Islands Lights – Wisconsin – Lake Superior - Apostle Islands Ashland Harbor Breakwater Light – Wisconsin – Lake Superior - Ashland Ashtabula Harbor Light – Ohio – Lake Erie - Ashtabula Badgeley Island – Ontario – Georgian Bay, Lake Huron – Badgeley Island Bailey’s Harbor Light – Wisconsin – Lake Michigan – Bailey’s Harbor, Door County Bailey’s Harbor Range Lights – Wisconsin – Lake Michigan – Bailey’s Harbor, Door County Bala Light – Ontario – Lake Muskoka – Muskoka Lakes Bar Point Shoal Light – Michigan – Lake Erie – Detroit River Baraga (Escanaba) (Sand Point) Light – Michigan – Lake Michigan – Sand Point Barber’s Point Light (Old) – New York – Lake Champlain – Barber’s Point Barcelona Light – New York – Lake Erie – Barcelona Lighthouse Battle Island Lightstation – Ontario – Lake Superior – Battle Island Light Beaver Head Light – Michigan – Lake Michigan – Beaver Island Beaver Island Harbor Light – Michigan – Lake Michigan – St. James (Beaver Island Harbor) Belle Isle Lighthouse – Michigan – Lake St. Clair – Belle Isle Bellevue Park Old Range Light – Michigan/Ontario – St. Mary’s River – Bellevue Park Bete Grise Light – Michigan – Lake Superior – Mendota (Bete Grise) Bete Grise Bay Light – Michigan – Lake Superior
    [Show full text]
  • Biodiversity of Michigan's Great Lakes Islands
    FILE COPY DO NOT REMOVE Biodiversity of Michigan’s Great Lakes Islands Knowledge, Threats and Protection Judith D. Soule Conservation Research Biologist April 5, 1993 Report for: Land and Water Management Division (CZM Contract 14C-309-3) Prepared by: Michigan Natural Features Inventory Stevens T. Mason Building P.O. Box 30028 Lansing, MI 48909 (517) 3734552 1993-10 F A report of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources pursuant to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Award No. 309-3 BIODWERSITY OF MICHIGAN’S GREAT LAKES ISLANDS Knowledge, Threats and Protection by Judith D. Soule Conservation Research Biologist Prepared by Michigan Natural Features Inventory Fifth floor, Mason Building P.O. Box 30023 Lansing, Michigan 48909 April 5, 1993 for Michigan Department of Natural Resources Land and Water Management Division Coastal Zone Management Program Contract # 14C-309-3 CL] = CD C] t2 CL] C] CL] CD = C = CZJ C] C] C] C] C] C] .TABLE Of CONThNTS TABLE OF CONTENTS I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iii INTRODUCTION 1 HISTORY AND PHYSICAL RESOURCES 4 Geology and post-glacial history 4 Size, isolation, and climate 6 Human history 7 BIODWERSITY OF THE ISLANDS 8 Rare animals 8 Waterfowl values 8 Other birds and fish 9 Unique plants 10 Shoreline natural communities 10 Threatened, endangered, and exemplary natural features 10 OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH ON MICHIGAN’S GREAT LAKES ISLANDS 13 Island research values 13 Examples of biological research on islands 13 Moose 13 Wolves 14 Deer 14 Colonial nesting waterbirds 14 Island biogeography studies 15 Predator-prey
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Michigan Stocking Report 2015
    Lake Michigan Committee Meeting Milwaukee, Wisconsin March 22, 2016 Summary of 2015 Lake Trout and Salmonid Stocking in Lake Michigan Prepared by Ryan Wehse U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Green Bay Fish & Wildlife Conservation Office 2661 Scott Tower Drive New Franken, WI 54229 This summary provides a brief synopsis of salmonid stocking trends in Lake Michigan, and more detailed information on 2015 lake trout stocking rates that are prescribed in A Fisheries Management Implementation Strategy for the Rehabilitation of Lake Trout in Lake Michigan (Dexter et al. 2011). All stocking records used in this report were obtained from the Great Lakes Fishery Commission’s fish stocking database that serves as a repository for federal, provincial, state, and tribal fish stocking events throughout Great Lakes waters. This database contains agency provided records dating back to the 1950’s and is available online at: http://www.glfc.org/fishstocking/. The content in the database is managed by the USFWS Green Bay FWCO; contact Dale Hanson ([email protected]) for more information. Lakewide salmonid trends: Figure 1. Trends in stocking for the primary species of trout and salmon in Lake Michigan. Chart data (in millions) is Chinook: Stocking reductions for Chinook provided in the accompanying table below. salmon were initiated in 1999, 2006, and again in 2013 to reduce the predation pressure on the alewife prey base. In 2015, 1.79 million Chinook were stocked in the lake. Michigan reduced Chinook stocking in 2015 by roughly 2/3 of their 2006 – 2012 mean while other states cut stocking to a lesser degree (5 – 24%).
    [Show full text]
  • Status Assessment and Conservation Recommendations for the Caspian Tern in North America August 2002 Recommended Citation
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Status Assessment and Conservation Recommendations for the Caspian Tern in North America August 2002 Recommended Citation: Shuford, W. D., and D. P. Craig. 2002. Status Assessment and Conservation Recommendations for the Caspian Tern (Sterna Caspia) in North America. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. Status Assessment and Conservation Recommendations for the Caspian Tern (Sterna Caspia) in North America W. David Shuford PRBO Conservation Science 4990 Shoreline Highway Stinson Beach, CA 94970 email: [email protected] and David P. Craig Department of Biology Willamette University 900 State Street Salem, OR 97301 email: [email protected] August 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................................. viii Summary............................................................................................................................................... 1 Taxonomy ............................................................................................................................................. 2 Legal and Conservation Status ............................................................................................................. 2 United States .......................................................................................................................... 2 Canada .................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Double-Crested Cormorant Damage Management in Michigan
    FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: DOUBLE-CRESTED CORMORANT DAMAGE MANAGEMENT IN MICHIGAN Prepared By: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE WILDLIFE SERVICES In Cooperation with: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE and the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE SLEEPING BEAR DUNES NATIONAL LAKESHORE June 2011 SUMMARY The United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services (USDA, APHIS, WS), the United States Department of the Interior (USDI), Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the USDI National Park Service, Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore have prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) on alternatives for the management of Double-crested Cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus, DCCO) damage in Michigan. Increases in the North American DCCO population, and subsequent range expansion have resulted in complaints of DCCO damage to property, aquaculture, and public resources (e.g., co-nesting colonial waterbirds, sport and commercial fish populations, and vegetation), and risks to human health and safety (e.g., risk of DCCO collisions with aircraft). This EA analyzes the need for cormorant damage management (CDM) in Michigan and five alternatives for meeting the need for action including implementation of the Public Resource Depredation Order (PRDO) (50 CFR 21.48) as promulgated by the USFWS. Alternatives considered include: 1) continuing the current CDM program including implementation of the PRDO (No Action Alternative); 2) Implementing an adaptive management program proposed by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment (MDNR); 3) implementing an adaptive management program proposed by the MDNR with a limit on annual DCCO take intermediate to the current program and the MDNR proposal; 4) Restricting Federal agency CDM to the use of nonlethal methods; and 5) Discontinuing CDM by Federal agencies.
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Michigan Stocking Report 2013
    Lake Michigan Committee Meeting Windsor, Ontario March 25, 2014 Salmonid Stocking Totals for Lake Michigan 1976-2013 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Green Bay National Fish & Wildlife Conservation Office 2661 Scott Tower Drive New Franken, WI 54229 The Great Lakes Fishery Commission’s fish stocking database is designed to summarize federal, provincial, state, and tribal fish stocking events. This database contains agency provided records dating back to the 1950’s and is available online at: (http://www.glfc.org/fishstocking/). The purpose of this report is to briefly summarize the information in the GLFC database for Lake Michigan federal lake trout stocking and stocking rates of all salmonids within state waters of Lake Michigan (Table 1). A summary of lake trout stocking locations, described by priority area in A Fisheries Management Implementation Strategy for the Rehabilitation of Lake Trout in Lake Michigan (Dexter et al. 2011), is also included (Figure 1, Table 2). Total numbers of Service stocked lake trout are shown by statistical district for the time series 1976 – 2013 in Table 3 while salmonid stocking totals for each state are described in Tables 4-7 (Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan, respectively). 2 Figure 1. Map showing the first and second priority stocking areas contained in the new lake trout restoration guide and implementation strategy. Figure 1. First and 2nd priority areas as described in A Fisheries Management Implementation Strategy for the Rehabilitation of Lake Trout in Lake Michigan (Dexter et al. 2011). 3 Table 1. Millions of salmonids, fingerling and yearling stages combined, stocked in Lake Michigan between 1976 and 2013.
    [Show full text]