Public Comment Invited on Lamprey Barrier in Menominee County, MI

[GLF]

The USFWS is seeking public comment on a draft environmental assessment (EA) that lays out a plan to construct a sea lamprey barrier on the Cedar River in Menominee County, Michigan. The Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC) and the USFWS have designed a sea lamprey barrier to place on the river as an alternative method to control sea lamprey in the Great Lakes.

The draft EA proposes to construct a barrier to block spawning migrations of sea lampreys in the Cedar River, a tributary to Lake Michigan located in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. The primary goal of this project is to deny sea lamprey access to spawning habitat and about 35.24 hectares of preferred larval sea lamprey habitat. This represents 1.8 percent of 1,900 hectares of preferred habitat regularly treated with the lampricide TFM or blocked by the 69 sea lamprey barriers in the Great Lakes today.

The draft EA considers three alternatives, including a fixed-crest barrier with a fishway and trap, and a “No Action†alternative, which is required under the National Environmental Policy Act. The proposed alternative includes a fixed-crest steel sheet pile (SSP) with a lamprey trap and two eight-foot draw-down gates.

Under the proposed alternative, a 54†SSP barrier that is seven feet, 52 inches from the stream bottom would span approximately 78 ft across the Cedar River. A trap and two eight-foot-wide draw-down gates would be located in line with the barrier. A large trap with a large funnel would trap large fish, and a small trap with a smaller funnel would trap smaller fish, specifically sea lampreys. The traps would be serviced daily during the sea lamprey migration season, March through August.

Sea lampreys captured in the trap would be removed from the river and non-target fish would be placed upstream. A jumping pool downstream of the gates would assist jumping fish over the barrier. The draw-down gates would be lowered during the non-operational period, September through February, to minimize backwater and allow for the stream and fish to move through the barrier.

For the last 46 years, the GLFC has contracted the Service and the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans to deliver a successful Sea Lamprey Control Program. The GLFC was formed during 1955 as a coalition between the United States and Canada to rehabilitate the Great Lakes fishery and coordinate research and control efforts for sea lampreys.

The primary control method relies on the application of the lampricide TFM (3-trifluoromethyl-4-nitrophenol) to streams to kill larval sea lampreys before they transform, enter the Great Lakes and feed on fish. The GLFC’s strategic vision milestone calls for reduced reliance on TFM through alternative control techniques. Installing barriers on key sea lamprey producing streams is targeted to play a major role in achieving this milestone.

If the river was not ranked for treatment during 2004 through 2006, the population, as estimated by the 2003 stream survey, would produce about 45,993 transformers that would enter Lake Michigan and destroy about 13,646,840 lbs of fish. This does not include spawning events and additional recruitment that would occur during 2004 and 2005.

TFM treatments are not 100 percent effective and as a result, lampreys may survive treatments. If the river was treated during 2005, an estimated 874 larvae would survive the treatment, transform and enter Lake Michigan during 2006. These transformers would destroy about 34,960 pounds of fish and contribute to the decline of Coho and chinook salmon, steelhead and whitefish populations in Lake Michigan.

Copies of the draft EA on Cedar River sea lamprey barrier may be obtained by contacting Cheryl Kaye, Marquette Biological Station, USFWS, 1924 Industrial Pkwy, Marquette, MI 49855; 906-226-1217; [email protected] .

Written comments on the EA will be accepted through March 10, 2006. Written comments should be submitted to Cheryl Kaye at the above address, or they may be faxed to 906-226-3632. When faxing a comment, a copy should also be mailed to ensure that a complete version of the text is received.