DOCSLIB.ORG

Sea Lamprey Control in the Great Lakes 2019

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sea Lamprey Control in the Great Lakes 2019 SEA LAMPREY CONTROL IN THE GREAT LAKES 2019 ANNUAL REPORT TO THE GREAT LAKES FISHERY COMMISSION Mike Steeves Fisheries and Oceans Canada Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario Canada Jessica Barber U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Marquette, Michigan United States Cover: Sea Lamprey in live tank at Sea Lamprey Control Outreach booth at the Duluth Boat, Sports, Travel and RV Show in Duluth, MN, 2019. (Photo: Stefanie Grand, DFO) Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 7 FISH COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................ 7 Lake Superior ................................................................................................................................. 8 Lake Michigan ................................................................................................................................ 8 Lake Huron .................................................................................................................................... 8 Lake Erie ........................................................................................................................................ 9 Lake Ontario ................................................................................................................................ 10 LAMPRICIDE CONTROL ..................................................................................................................... 11 Lake Superior ............................................................................................................................... 14 Lake Michigan .............................................................................................................................. 18 Lake Huron .................................................................................................................................. 20 Lake Erie ...................................................................................................................................... 22 Lake Ontario ................................................................................................................................ 24 ALTERNATIVE CONTROL .................................................................................................................. 26 Barriers................................................................................................................................................ 26 Lake Superior ............................................................................................................................... 28 Lake Michigan .............................................................................................................................. 29 Lake Huron .................................................................................................................................. 32 Lake Erie ...................................................................................................................................... 34 Lake Ontario ................................................................................................................................ 36 Juvenile Trapping ............................................................................................................................... 37 Sterile Male Release Technique ........................................................................................................ 37 ASSESSMENT .......................................................................................................................................... 38 Larval Assessment .............................................................................................................................. 39 Lake Superior ............................................................................................................................... 39 Lake Michigan .............................................................................................................................. 47 Lake Huron .................................................................................................................................. 52 Lake Erie ...................................................................................................................................... 58 Lake Ontario ................................................................................................................................ 60 Juvenile Assessment ........................................................................................................................... 64 Lake Superior ............................................................................................................................... 64 Lake Michigan .............................................................................................................................. 65 Lake Huron .................................................................................................................................. 66 Lake Erie ...................................................................................................................................... 68 Lake Ontario ................................................................................................................................ 69 Adult Assessment ................................................................................................................................ 70 Lake Superior ............................................................................................................................... 70 Lake Michigan .............................................................................................................................. 72 Lake Huron .................................................................................................................................. 74 Lake Erie ...................................................................................................................................... 76 Lake Ontario ................................................................................................................................ 78 RISK MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................ 81 TASK FORCE REPORTS ....................................................................................................................... 85 Lampricide Control Task Force ........................................................................................................ 85 Barrier Task Force ............................................................................................................................. 88 Larval Assessment Task Force .......................................................................................................... 90 Trapping Task Force .......................................................................................................................... 92 COMMUNICATIONS AND OUTREACH ............................................................................................ 97 PERMANENT EMPLOYEES OF THE SEA LAMPREY CONTROL PROGRAM ........................ 98 1 Tables Table 1. Summary of lampricide applications in tributaries of the Great Lakes in 2019. ............11 Table 2. Details on the application of lampricides to tributaries and lentic areas of Lake Superior during 2019 (letter in parentheses corresponds to location of stream in Figure 2). .......................15 Table 3. Details on the application of lampricides to tributaries and lentic areas of Lake Michigan during 2019 (letter in parentheses corresponds to location of stream in Figure 2). .......................19 Table 4. Details on the application of lampricides to tributaries and lentic areas of Lake Huron during 2019 (letter in parentheses corresponds to location of stream in Figure 2). .......................21 Table 5. Details on the application of lampricides to tributaries and lentic areas of Lake Erie during 2019 (letter in parentheses corresponds to location of stream in Figure 2). ..................................23 Table 6. Details on the application of lampricides to tributaries of Lake Ontario during 2019 (letter in parentheses corresponds to location of stream in Figure 2).......................................................25 Table 7. Status of concurrence requests for barrier removals, replacements, or fish passage projects in Lake Superior tributaries during 2019. ......................................................................................29 Table 8. Status of concurrence requests for barrier removals, replacements, or fish passage projects in Lake Michigan tributaries during 2019. ....................................................................................31 Table 9. Status of concurrence requests for barrier removals, replacements, or fish passage projects in Lake Huron tributaries during 2019...........................................................................................33 Table 10. Status of concurrence requests for barrier removals, replacements, or fish passage projects in Lake Erie tributaries during 2019. ...............................................................................35 Table 11. Status of larval Sea Lamprey in Lake
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • What Was the Iroquois Confederacy?
    04 AB6 Ch 4.11 4/2/08 11:22 AM Page 82 What was the 4 Iroquois Confederacy? Chapter Focus Questions •What was the social structure of Iroquois society? •What opportunities did people have to participate in decision making? •What were the ideas behind the government of the Iroquois Confederacy? The last chapter explored the government of ancient Athens. This chapter explores another government with deep roots in history: the Iroquois Confederacy. The Iroquois Confederacy formed hundreds of years ago in North America — long before Europeans first arrived here. The structure and principles of its government influenced the government that the United States eventually established. The Confederacy united five, and later six, separate nations. It had clear rules and procedures for making decisions through representatives and consensus. It reflected respect for diversity and a belief in the equality of people. Pause The image on the side of this page represents the Iroquois Confederacy and its five original member nations. It is a symbol as old as the Confederacy itself. Why do you think this symbol is still honoured in Iroquois society? 82 04 AB6 Ch 4.11 4/2/08 11:22 AM Page 83 What are we learning in this chapter? Iroquois versus Haudenosaunee This chapter explores the social structure of Iroquois There are two names for society, which showed particular respect for women and the Iroquois people today: for people of other cultures. Iroquois (ear-o-kwa) and Haudenosaunee It also explores the structure and processes of Iroquois (how-den-o-show-nee). government. Think back to Chapter 3, where you saw how Iroquois is a name that the social structure of ancient Athens determined the way dates from the fur trade people participated in its government.
    [Show full text]
  • Population in Goulais Bay, Lake Superior
    See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264864682 Identification of a robust Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens Rafinesque, 1917) population in Goulais Bay, Lake Superior Article in Journal of Applied Ichthyology · August 2014 DOI: 10.1111/jai.12566 CITATIONS READS 0 33 5 authors, including: Thomas C. Pratt Jennie Pearce Fisheries and Oceans Canada Pearce & Associates Ecological Research 49 PUBLICATIONS 489 CITATIONS 42 PUBLICATIONS 3,610 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE All content following this page was uploaded by Thomas C. Pratt on 08 April 2016. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately. Journal of Applied Ichthyology J. Appl. Ichthyol. (2014), 1–7 Received: December 6, 2013 © 2014 Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada Accepted: February 24, 2014 Journal of Applied Ichthyology © 2014 Blackwell Verlag GmbH doi: 10.1111/jai.12566 ISSN 0175–8659 Identification of a robust Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens Rafinesque, 1917) population in Goulais Bay, Lake Superior By T. C. Pratt1, W. M. Gardner1, J. Pearce2, S. Greenwood3 and S. C. Chong3 1Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Sault Ste Marie, ON, Canada; 2Pearce & Associates Ecological Research, Sault Ste Marie, ON, Canada; 3Upper Great Lakes Management Unit, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Sault Ste Marie, ON, Canada Summary anthropogenic activities due to specific life history character- Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens Rafinesque, 1917) in istics, including slow growth and late maturation, intermit- Lake Superior are greatly depressed from their historic abun- tent spawning intervals, and habitat requirements such as dance, and few populations meet the rehabilitation goals specific temperature, flow velocities and substrate require- identified by management agencies.
    [Show full text]
  • N Shore L. Superior: Geology, Scenery
    THESE TERMS GOVERN YOUR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT Your use of this Ontario Geological Survey document (the “Content”) is governed by the terms set out on this page (“Terms of Use”). By downloading this Content, you (the “User”) have accepted, and have agreed to be bound by, the Terms of Use. Content: This Content is offered by the Province of Ontario’s Ministry of Northern Development and Mines (MNDM) as a public service, on an “as-is” basis. Recommendations and statements of opinion expressed in the Content are those of the author or authors and are not to be construed as statement of government policy. You are solely responsible for your use of the Content. You should not rely on the Content for legal advice nor as authoritative in your particular circumstances. Users should verify the accuracy and applicability of any Content before acting on it. MNDM does not guarantee, or make any warranty express or implied, that the Content is current, accurate, complete or reliable. MNDM is not responsible for any damage however caused, which results, directly or indirectly, from your use of the Content. MNDM assumes no legal liability or responsibility for the Content whatsoever. Links to Other Web Sites: This Content may contain links, to Web sites that are not operated by MNDM. Linked Web sites may not be available in French. MNDM neither endorses nor assumes any responsibility for the safety, accuracy or availability of linked Web sites or the information contained on them. The linked Web sites, their operation and content are the responsibility of the person or entity for which they were created or maintained (the “Owner”).
    [Show full text]
  • Land Information Ontario Data Description OTN Trailhead
    Unclassified Land Information Ontario Data Description OTN Trailhead Disclaimer This technical documentation has been prepared by the Ministry of Natural Resources (the “Ministry”), representing Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario. Although every effort has been made to verify the information, this document is presented as is, and the Ministry makes no guarantees, representations or warranties with respect to the information contained within this document, either express or implied, arising by law or otherwise, including but not limited to, effectiveness, completeness, accuracy, or fitness for purpose. The Ministry is not liable or responsible for any loss or harm of any kind arising from use of this information. For an accessible version of this document, please contact Land Information Ontario at (705) 755 1878 or [email protected] ©Queens Printer for Ontario, 2012 LIO Class Catalogue OTN Trailhead Class Short Name: OTNTHD Version Number: 1 Class Description: The point at which the trail starts. A trailhead exists for each trail. A trail may consist of one or more trail segments. Abstract Class Name: SPSPNT Abstract Class Description: Spatial Single-Point: An object is represented by ONE and ONLY ONE point. Examples: A cabin, bird nest, tower. Tables in LIO Class: OTN Trailhead OTN_TRAILHEAD_FT The point at which the trail starts. A trailhead exists for each trail. A trail may consist of one or more trail segments. Column Name Column Mandatory Short Name Valid Values Type OGF_ID NUMBER Yes OGF_ID (13,0) A unique numeric provincial identifier assigned to each object. TRAIL_NAME VARCHAR2 Yes TRAIL_NAME (200) The name that the trail is most commonly known as.
    [Show full text]
  • Transforming the Grand River
    The WCA thanks the Ontario Trillium Foundation for their support of this TRANSFORMING ‘War of 1812’ Bicentennial commemorative project. THE GRAND RIVER eography matters. In many ways, the Grand River has determined the course of history for Canada. The geography attracted Aboriginal peoples at the close of the last ice age, and led Gto the emergence of vibrant and complex agrarian aboriginal nations. Following European colonization, the region became strategically important and figured heavily in the various events that shaped modern North America. The early settlements that located along the Grand River Watershed have today become some of Ontario’s major cities and commercial centres. The region’s excellent waterways and the river’s natural capacity to provide power to operate heavy machinery made it an ideal place to locate the centres that would later provide the industrial infrastructure of the Province of Ontario, and serve as a major driver of the Canadian economy. Scan to view this panel ! Just below Brantford, The Grand River opens up into a slow and relatively shallow watercourse used for transporting goods until the 1850’s when the railways were built. Grand River Sunrise " The fast flowing water of the Grand River attracted the first settlers to this area ! The Grand River Watershed and in 1817, Roswell feeds the needs of thousands Matthews built the first house of industries and almost one in what was to become the million citizens. Village of Elora. Incorporated ! The Grand River Watershed today. as the Town of Elora in 1852, Source: Canadian Heritage River Systems website. the town soon became a # Grand River Watershed.
    [Show full text]
  • Rivers at Risk: the Status of Environmental Flows in Canada
    Rivers at Risk: The Status of Environmental Flows in Canada Prepared by: Becky Swainson, MA Research Consultant Prepared for: WWF-Canada Freshwater Program Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge the valuable contributions of the river advocates and professionals from across Canada who lent their time and insights to this assessment. Also, special thanks to Brian Richter, Oliver Brandes, Tim Morris, David Schindler, Tom Le Quesne and Allan Locke for their thoughtful reviews. i Rivers at Risk Acronyms BC British Columbia CBM Coalbed methane CEMA Cumulative Effects Management Association COSEWIC Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada CRI Canadian Rivers Institute DFO Fisheries and Oceans Canada EBF Ecosystem base flow IBA Important Bird Area IFN Instream flow needs IJC International Joint Commission IPP Independent Power Producer GRCA Grand River Conservation Authority LWR Low Water Response MOE Ministry of Environment (Ontario) MNR Ministry of Natural Resources (Ontario) MRBB Mackenzie River Basin Board MW Megawatt NB New Brunswick NGO Non-governmental organization NWT Northwest Territories P2FC Phase 2 Framework Committee PTTW Permit to Take Water QC Quebec RAP Remedial Action Plan SSRB South Saskatchewan River Basin UNESCO United Nations Environmental, Scientific and Cultural Organization US United States WCO Water Conservation Objectives ii Rivers at Risk Contents Rivers at Risk: The Status of Environmental Flows in Canada CONTENTS Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Canada's Rivers at Risk
    Canada’s Rivers at Risk Environmental Flows and Canada’s Freshwater Future Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Canada’s River’s at Risk WWF-Canada acknowledges the valuable Cover page Rivers contributions of the river scientists, advocates, Large photo © Garth Lenz / WWF-Canada Skeena © Mike Ambach / WWF-Canada and managers from across Canada who lent Dam © Ontario Power Generation Mackenzie © Tessa Macintosh / WWF-Canada their time and insights to this report. Special Sunset © Becky Swainson Fraser © Michel Roggo / WWF-Canon 2 Summary thanks to Becky Swainson for synthesizing vast Irrigation © Photodisc Athabasca © Jiri Rezac / WWF-UK volumes of information into the technical study Parliament © Jupiter Images Nipigon © Gord Ellis on which Canada’s Rivers at Risk is based, and Dry earth © Photodisc Grand © GRCA photo by Carl Hiebert 4 Introduction Ottawa © Alex Indigo to Brian Richter, Oliver Brandes, Tim Morris, Table of contents South Saskatchewan © Rob Huntley David Schindler, Tom Le Quesne and Allan Locke © Garth Lenz / WWF-Canada for their thoughtful reviews. WWF-Canada also St. Lawrence © Dave Finger wishes to acknowledge Sarah Weber of Lightning Summary Saint John © Gilbert Van Ryckevorsel / WWF-Canada 6 Environmental Flows: Threats and Impacts © Garth Lenz / WWF-Canada Editorial and the staff at Mystique Creative for Conclusion their work on the final product. Introduction © Garth Lenz / WWF-Canada © Greg Stott / WWF-Canada Finally, WWF-Canada gratefully acknowledges Back cover 8 Skeena River John McCutcheon for his long-standing commit- Environmental Flows © Garth Lenz / WWF-Canada ment to freshwater protection in Canada. We also Large photo © Frank Parhizgar / WWF-Canada thank the Pat and John McCutcheon Charitable Dam © Patricia Buckley / WWF-Canada 10 Mackenzie River Foundation and Ted Hogarth for providing financial Irrigation © Patricia Buckley / WWF-Canada support to this project.
    [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]
  • Distances Between United States Ports 2019 (13Th) Edition
    Distances Between United States Ports 2019 (13th) Edition T OF EN CO M M T M R E A R P C E E D U N A I C T I E R D E S M T A ATES OF U.S. Department of Commerce Wilbur L. Ross, Jr., Secretary of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) RDML Timothy Gallaudet., Ph.D., USN Ret., Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere National Ocean Service Nicole R. LeBoeuf, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services and Coastal Zone Management Cover image courtesy of Megan Greenaway—Great Salt Pond, Block Island, RI III Preface Distances Between United States Ports is published by the Office of Coast Survey, National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), pursuant to the Act of 6 August 1947 (33 U.S.C. 883a and b), and the Act of 22 October 1968 (44 U.S.C. 1310). Distances Between United States Ports contains distances from a port of the United States to other ports in the United States, and from a port in the Great Lakes in the United States to Canadian ports in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River. Distances Between Ports, Publication 151, is published by National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) and distributed by NOS. NGA Pub. 151 is international in scope and lists distances from foreign port to foreign port and from foreign port to major U.S. ports. The two publications, Distances Between United States Ports and Distances Between Ports, complement each other.
    [Show full text]
  • LAND by the LAKES Nearshore Terrestrial Ecosystems
    State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference 1996 Background Paper THE LAND BY THE LAKES Nearshore Terrestrial Ecosystems Ron Reid Bobolink Enterprises Washago, Ontario Canada Karen Holland U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Chicago, Illinois U.S.A. October 1997 ISBN 0-662-26033-3 EPA 905-R-97-015c Cat. No. En40-11/35-3-1997E ii The Land by the Lakes—SOLEC 96 Table of Contents Acknowledgments ................................................................. v 1. Overview of the Land by the Lakes .................................................. 1 1.1 Introduction ............................................................ 1 1.2 Report Structure ......................................................... 2 1.3 Conclusion ............................................................. 2 1.4 Key Observations ........................................................ 3 1.5 Moving Forward ......................................................... 5 2. The Ecoregional Context .......................................................... 6 2.1 Why Consider Ecoregional Context? .......................................... 6 2.2 Classification Systems for Great Lakes Ecoregions ............................... 7 3. Where Land and Water Meet ....................................................... 9 3.1 Changing Shapes and Structures ............................................. 9 3.1.1 Crustal Tilting ................................................. 10 3.1.2 Climate ....................................................... 10 3.1.3 Erosion ......................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Report, January 1988
    REPORT OF THE EVALUATION OF THE GREAT LAKES FISHERY COMMISSIONS'S PROGRAM OF SEA LAMPREY BARRIER DAMS JANUARY 1988 LIsTOFAPPENDICES Great Lakes Fishery Commission's Policy Statement fortheF&leofIhrrierDanrs inanInteqat&Sea Lamprey CbntmlPmgram . 31 Appendix 2 Great Lakes Fishery &mmissionts Guidelines for Barrier Dam Fxgram for Sea Lamprey Management . 35 Appendix 3 Tansof Reference for the Task Force to Assess the Sea Lamprey Barrier Dam Program . 41 Appendix 4 Map of the Great Lakes Shc&.ngLccationofSea Lanqqzy Barrier Dams . 47 Information Matrix on Sea Lamprey l%rrierlhms. 49 Photographs of Sea Lamprey Bamier Dams...... 55 Design Drawings of Sea hmprey Barrier Dams.... 73 Remrks Fresented at the Official Opening of Denny's EamIampreyE?arrierandFishway, Saugeen River, Ontario, May 21, 1971 by J.J. Tibbles . 81 Appendix 9 Inventory of E3ristiqStmchres Blocking Sea Lamprey Migrations . 87 Great Lakes Fishery &mm.ission Application for Fur&toAcquireLandand/orConstructor~ira BarrierD3mtoStopSpawning-Runs of Sea Lamprey. .103 Appendix 11 Federal/l?rmincial. Agreement on Sea Lamprey Barrier Dams . 111 Appendix 12 WamiqSignsatSeaLamprey BarrierIhms . 119 Appendk 13 Information Signs at Sea Lamprey Barrier &ms . 123 Appendu 14 Draft Letter to owness ofmtsStoppiqSpawning- Run Sea Lamprey . 125 ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Great Lakes Fishery Ccmnission established a Task Force at its annual meeting in May 1984 to evaluate the sea lamprey barrier dam program The objectives of the Task Force were a) to evaluate the effectiveness of the sea lamprey barrier dam program fromboth a biological and econm.ic perqective, b) to identify successes andsho~ arflc)tomke reammx&tionsconcerning further develmtof barrier dam lformnagment of sea lampreys throughout the Great-.
    [Show full text]