Home Who We Are Mission and Goals What We Do Native Species Restoration Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Treaty Fishery Assistance Refuge Fishery Assistance Habitat and Ecosystem Health Station Reports Staff Education and Outreach Employment and Volunteering Contact Us Phone: 989-356-5102 Fax: 989-356-4651 Address: 145 Water Street, Room 204 Alpena, MI 49707

Alpena NFWCO Station Report
Back to Reports

---

Fisheries Stewardship Progress Report
Coaster Brook Trout

September 15, 1998

Heather L. (Enterline) Rawlings
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Alpena Fishery Resources Office
145 Water Street
Alpena, Michigan 49707
heather_rawllings@fws.gov

Provisional data, not to be cited without permission.

I. INTRODUCTION

Coaster brook trout (coasters), or brook trout that spend part of their life in the Great Lakes, have a preference for shoreline habitat (Newman and Dubois, 1997). Present in Lake Superior, it is believed Lake Huron may have/had populations of this trophy-sized brook trout present as well. Although coasters are considered one of two native salmonids historically present in Lake Huron, Fish Community Objectives (FCO) recently completed for the lake (DesJardine et al. 1995) fail to address the species (DesJardine et al. 1995). The State of Lake Huron in 1992 (Ebener et al. 1995) only briefly acknowledges brook trout. No current management plans exist for brook trout in Lake Huron.

The Service role in the protection and restoration of native Great Lakes fish and wildlife resources and the habitats upon which they depend has been clearly defined. Loss of critical habitat, along with over harvest and the introduction of non-indigenous species, has resulted in the depletion of some fish species to levels where only a few remnant stocks remain.

Funding provided by the Service's Fisheries Stewardship Program has allowed the Alpena FRO 1) to begin a three year study to investigate current and historical ranges of coaster brook trout, 2) to identify past and present spawning habitats, and 3) to select candidate streams for in depth investigation and determine potential for restoration efforts should an interagency effort be approved by the Lake Huron Committee.

 

II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The objectives for this study include: 1) a historical summary of coaster brook trout in Lake Huron, including streams thought to have supported reproduction; 2) a habitat survey of past and potential spawning streams identifying impediments to present day utilization, and; 3) a final report to present to the Lake Huron Committee describing historical record, impediments to restoration, and potential for restoration of the species in Lake Huron.

The first year (FY 97) of the study emphasized compilation of historical evidence of the presence of coaster brook trout in Lake Huron. Fishermen around the basin were encouraged to contribute any knowledge of these trophy brook trout. Newspaper clippings, conservation reports, sea lamprey weir data, books, scientific papers, incidental reports, and interviews with fishermen were collected, compiled, and a list of historical coaster spawning streams was created. Several records exist relative to incidental brook trout catches, but few refer to coasters existing in any great number. As with the fishing interviews, most documented reports are of incidental catches. Several streams have been reported to either have had or presently have a spawning population, and it is along these streams and coastlines of the lake that most of these incidental catches are reported.

One of the many challenges of this study is to determine whether a brook trout population is native, or if it has resulted from stocking. Stocking records were obtained from Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) personnel in both Alpena and Newberry, and those records indicate several of the catches, particularly around the Alpena area were probably due to stocking efforts. From 1984-1991 the MDNR planted brook trout into Lake Huron to provide a diversity of nearshore fishing opportunities to anglers. Stocking success was poor and the program was discontinued in 1991. Unfortunately, these efforts decrease the reliability of any "coaster" catches around the Rogers City /Alpena geographic area up to the present time. Stocking reports from Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) were obtained during the FY 98 field season, and will be reviewed for the final report.

In order to publicize the search for coaster information a poster was created and placed at all marinas and many bait shops around Lake Huron, including all Canadian marinas. The coaster poster has been included on our Alpena FRO Internet Homepage, coupled with information regarding the study. People with information are encouraged to contact the Alpena FRO and report any catches. Through the use of this poster 15-20 additional reports of coaster catches were received from around the Lake Huron basin.

U.S. streams where historical and current runs of large brook trout were/are believed to take place are confined to Lake Huron waters from Mill Creek in Harrisville to the St. Mary's River in the Eastern Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Reports of catches or runs of coasters in Canadian waters are quite varied. Catches have been reported in the northern reaches of the North Channel, southern Manitoulin Island, the south-east corner of Georgian Bay, and there are reports of current runs on the Bruce Peninsula. Only one sighting has been reported of coasters in the main basin of the Canadian waters of Lake Huron.

Year two (FY 98) of the Lake Huron coaster brook trout study consisted of surveying the habitat and fisheries populations of streams that historically supported spawning populations of coaster brook trout. Eighteen streams were surveyed. Six are in the lower peninsula of Michigan, six were in the upper peninsula of Michigan and six were in Ontario, including the lower St. Mary’s River, St. Joseph Island, North Channel, and Manitoulin Island. Reports were made of current populations on the Bruce Peninsula, however, no definite information was gathered and due to ongoing disputes between the Province of Ontario and First Nations Tribes this portion of the study was dropped.

Eighteen streams were assessed for habitat during the 1998 field season. All streams were walked from the mouth upstream noting along the way barriers to spawning habitat, presence of gravel/cobble substrate, and groundwater input (temperature). A viewing tube was constructed by Biological Technician Koproski to facilitate examination of the substrate. This viewing tube allowed us to determine a rough percent composition of the various categories of substrate ex: boulder, cobble, gravel, sand and silt. Substrate size categorization and determination of percent cover and percent shading were taken from Simonson, et. al. (1994).

The summer of 1998 was extremely dry, with very little rainfall in the Lake Huron basin. Due to these weather conditions many of the streams noted as historically supporting coasters had very low flow by mid-summer, showing little groundwater input and high temperatures. It was concluded that coasters may have utilized these streams at one point for feeding or shelter at certain times of the year, but these streams are unable to support juveniles during instances of low water. Lake Superior studies are suggesting juvenile coaster brook trout remain in their natal stream for a year before swimming out to the lake (Newman, personal comm.). If this is true for Lake Huron coasters as well, then very few of the streams surveyed would support coasters year-round. The streams that retain low temperatures and stable flows (indicating high groundwater input) are able to support a year-round population of coldwater fish and therefore are the streams in which the Alpena FRO is concentrating their electrofishing studies.

Although eighteen streams were assessed, only eight of the eighteen would possibly be able to support a year-round trout population, as indicated by the initial habitat assessment. Appendix 1 defines the process in which streams were eliminated or determined suitable for further study. Those eight streams were electrofished with a AbP-3^TM backpack shocker using the experimental quadrapulse system. The quadrapulse system dramatically reduces damage to salmonids if used properly (O’Neal, 1998). We noticed very little damage to the trout, and believe the electropulse system to be an efficient and biologically safe means to capture salmonids. Voltages between 350-400 were used, depending on the conductivity of the water. Duty cycle was maintained at 20%. When the duty cycle was set higher than 20% tissue damage was incurred in the form of stunning (hard narcosis). Rate was set at 200pps (pulses per second) for all electrofishing sites. These settings were used in low conductivity waters ranging from 80-200 uS (micro-semuns).

Due to a manufacturer backorder in backpack electrofishers, Technician Enterline was unable to initiate shocking surveys until late July of 1998. Once the electrofisher was obtained the fieldwork immediately commenced, and eight streams were sampled.

Data collected during the electrofishing process included: water temperature (Celsius), conductivity (uS), pH, % cover, % shading, % substrate composition, water color, turbidity, water levels, GPS coordinate, average wetted width and depth (m.), estimated area shocked (m³), actual time electrofished (seconds), fish species collected, and number of each species collected. For all brook trout caught, length (mm.), weight (g.), removal of the adipose fin for genetic testing, scale sample, and the coloration. Pictures have been taken of each site electrofished.

Four of the eight streams were targeted as potentially having a current run of coaster brook trout. These four streams will be periodically checked throughout the fall and early winter for spawning coasters. Streams are located on Manitoulin Island, Ontario (Blue Jay Creek), the upper peninsula of Michigan (Albany Creek), and there are two in the lower peninsula of Michigan (Elliot Creek and the Black River). Assistance from the Blue Jay Creek lake trout hatchery manager Paul Methner (OMNR) has been particularly helpful. Paul monitors the fish runs in Blue Jay Creek closely, and contacted the Alpena FRO when the fall brook trout spawning run started.

Genetic samples were taken from a representative sample of all brook trout caught while electrofishing, although none of the brook trout caught had a distinctive size difference or coloring. Twenty-seven genetic samples were taken from five different streams. These genetic samples will be shipped to Mary Burnham-Curtis of the USGS-Great Lakes Science Center in Ann Arbor, MI for testing. To date no brook trout have been caught that could be positively identified as being coasters.

 

III. COOPERATORS

In order to assess the fisheries populations in the targeted streams supplemental funding had to be acquired to purchase field equipment such as a backpack electrofisher, batteries, a charger, nets, tools, and various other gear. Trout Unlimited provided this study with funding assistance through their Coldwater Conservation Fund. This funding also assisted with the extensive travel costs incurred for the basin-wide fieldwork during the 1998 field season.

Distributing information by word of mouth through agency personnel has been an excellent source of information. MDNR and OMNR personnel have been especially helpful in relaying information to co-workers and reporting contact information for local commercial and recreational fishers. Sportfishing clubs, and universities with fisheries faculty have been contacted via personal communication along with U.S. and Canadian museum personnel. Sea Lamprey Control offices, both U.S. and Canadian, have been assisting the study by sharing personal knowledge of rivers and streams, providing access information, and allowing Service personnel to review weir and shocking data from the last 40 years. Technician Enterline developed a working relationship with personnel from OMNR, Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), Canadian First Nations, MDNR, U.S. Tribal Biologists, commercial fishermen in both Ontario and the U.S., recreational fishermen from Ontario and the U.S., the Lake Superior Brook Trout Subcommittee representatives, and recreational fishermen around the Lake Huron basin.

Outreach has also consisted of publicizing the study in local newspapers, magazines, and via the Internet, and presenting the study to groups such as universities, fellow natural resources staff, and local interest groups.

 

 

V. FUTURE DELIVERABLES

FY 1999 will be spent compiling information gathered in 1998, and consolidating information into a final report to define the status of coaster brook trout in Lake Huron. The report will include a historical summary of the coaster in Lake Huron, impediments to restoration, and the potential for restoration of this species to the Lake Huron fisheries community. This report will be presented to the Lake Huron Committee in 1999.

Many questions remain about the basic biology of the coaster brook trout. Are these fish originally stream-run fish that were overcrowded and moved out to the lake, or are they a separate strain or species of brook trout? Do all races of coasters utilize a tributary to spawn, or are some spawning in the lake? How critical is it that the spawning habitat be high-quality? These questions are crucial when attempting to define a population such as this. Studies to answer these questions are imperative before restoration efforts should be considered.

LITERATURE CITED

Dubois, Robert B. and L.E. Newman. Status of Brook Trout in Lake Superior. Unpublished. January 1997.

DesJardine, R.L., T.K. Gorenflo, R.N.Payne, and JD. Schrouder. Lake Huron Fish Community Objectives. Great Lakes Fishery Commission, April1995.

Ebener, Mark P., ed. The State of Lake Huron in 1995. Great Lakes Fishery Commission, 1995.

O’Neal, L.B. AbP-3^TM Operator’s Manual. University of Wisconsin-ETS. June 1998.

Simonson, Timothy D., J. Lyons and P.D. Kanehl. Quantifying Fish Habitat in Streams: Transect Spacing, Sample Size, and a Proposed Framework. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 14:607-615, 1994.

 

APPENDIX  1

Determination of Stream Quality for Coaster Brook Trout

Initial Assessment (Spring 1998)

Streams were eliminated from electroshocking list if:

• Barrier to spawning habitat (natural or manmade)

• Temperature too high (>18 degrees Celsius)

• No spawning gravel (sand and silt the only substrate)

Location of spawning salmonids (steelhead and chinook) were noted along with presence of redds

 

Electrofishing (Late Summer/ Early Fall 1998)

Streams were eliminated if:

• Water is too low (indicating little groundwater input, upwellings)

• Temperature too high (>18 degrees Celsius)

Streams that were electrofished had a steady supply of groundwater, which kept temperatures low (4- 15 degrees Celsius). When shocked, all fish species were noted, but special attention was given to:

• Presence/absence of brook trout was recorded

• Presence/absence of competing salmonids were recorded

  Four streams were chosen to electrofish during the fall spawning of brook trout, to potentially discover a population of coasters.

---

Last updated: July 8, 2008

Midwest Region Home

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Home Page | Department of the Interior  | USA.gov  | About the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service  | Accessibility  | Privacy  | Notices  | Disclaimer  | FOIA