Coaster Brook Trout in the Great Lakes

Introduction History Science ConflictsRelevant

LegislationLegislative

Effectiveness

Coaster Brook Trout in the Great Lakes



Effectiveness

Table of Contents• Introduction

• History

• Science and Threats to Restoration

• Relevant Legislation

• Legislative Effectiveness

• References



Effectiveness

What is a “Coaster” Brook Trout?Brook Trout are a species of fish widespread throughout the Northeast of the United States. Generally they reside in cold-water streams their entire lives. As adults, they are important predators that feed on a wide variety of prey.

“Coasters” are the same species as Brook Trout, but instead of remaining in streams throughout their lifespan, they travel downstream and reside in the coastal regions of large lakes. This is how they got their name “Coasters.”



Effectiveness

Life history of a Coaster

Coaster Brook Trout, like all Brook Trout, hatch from eggs in cold water streams during the winter. Here they spend their first months of life feeding on zooplankton and benthic invertebrates. Because of their small size, Brook Trout are vulnerable to predators and rely on rocks and fallen logs for cover.



Effectiveness

Life history of a coaster

Coasters differentiate themselves from stream populations when they leave their natal habitats for the coastal regions of large lakes. Coasters generally live within fifty meter of the shore.



Effectiveness


After spending most of their adult life in the coastal regions of large lakes, many Coasters return to spawn in cold-water streams. Unlike many anadromous salmon species, they do not necessarily return to their nursery areas. Spawning occurs around October, and eggs hatch two to three months later.



Effectiveness


Some Coasters will remain in the coastal regions of the lakes where they will spawn. It is still unknown what causes some Coasters to return to stream habitats and others to remain in lakes for the remainder of their lives. Further research is need to determine the influence of genetics and environment on life history strategy.



Effectiveness

Other differences between coasters and stream dwelling brook trout

• Coasters also differ from other populations of brook trout in size and color. Stream dwelling brook trout are generally between 7-9 inches while coasters commonly reach sizes of over 26 inches.

• The largest coaster brook trout was caught in 1915 and was 34.5 inches long!

Other Coaster traits



Effectiveness

Other differences between coasters and stream dwelling brook trout

• Coasters also differ from other populations of brook trout in size and color. Stream dwelling brook trout are generally between 7-9 inches while coasters commonly reach sizes of over 26 inches.

• The largest coaster brook trout was caught in 1915 and was 34.5 inches long!

Other Coaster traits

Coasters also differ from other populations of Brook Trout in size and color. Stream-dwelling Brook Trout are generally between 7–9 inches long, while Coasters commonly reach sizes of over 26 inches in length. The largest Coaster Brook Trout on record was caught in 1915, and was 34.5 inches long.



Effectiveness

Historical distributionThen Now

In the 1800, settlers discovered huge populations of Coasters widespread throughout Lake Superior and parts of Lake Huron. Coasters provided an important source of food for early settlers who caught vast quantities of the fish as they returned to spawn in cold-water streams. The blue dots represent the tributaries that once contained Coaster Brook Trout populations.

Now only four isolated stocks of Coasters remain in the United States. All four remaining stocks occur in areas where habitat has been protected. Three of the stocks are on Isle Royal National Park (points 2, 3 and 4 on the chart above), and the other population is in the Salmon Trout River where the Huron Mountain Club owns much of the land adjacent to the tributary.



Effectiveness

CollapseEarly sustenance fishing in the late ninetieth century was replaced by sport fishing in the early twentieth century.

Habitat loss and degradation due to industry and road construction exacerbated the effect of fishing mortality, and by the early 1900s Coaster populations were beginning to crash.



Effectiveness

Early ManagementAfter a sharp drop in Coaster abundance in the early twentieth century, anglers’ demand for a sport fishery pressured the government into managing Coaster populations. Management strategies consisted of stocking and implementing harvest restrictions. Stocking was haphazard and poorly documented. Anglers caught stocked Coasters, however the stocking efforts failed to produce a successfully reproducing, self-sustaining population. Harvest restrictions were liberal and failed to curtail the collapse of many coaster stocks.



Effectiveness

Major concernsHabitat loss

Competition

Fishing mortality



Effectiveness

Angling mortalityOriginally fishing mortality was probably the most severe threat and leading cause of population decline in Coasters. Coasters are extremely vulnerable to fishing mortality because of their highly aggressive behavior relative to other salmonids, which meant they would more aggressively go after the bait. Reports of anglers catching 100 Coasters in a day are common. Coasters were fished commercially with gill nets until the late 1970s.

It was not until very recently that strict bag and size limits were enforced. Now fish mortality is rare, mostly due to the rarity of Coasters in general. However if Coasters are to recover, strict angling limits, with emphasis on catch-and-release fishing, must be enforced so fishing mortality does not rise again as Coasters become more abundant.



Effectiveness

Habitat loss and degradationLoss of woody habitat

Before After

Live trees provide shading for creeks and streams which help keep temperatures low (important for coasters). When trees die and fall over they provide cover for smaller brook trout to hide from predators. Deforestation reduced both cover and fallen trees which has degraded the quality of stream habitat.

Coaster females dig a depression in the gravel bottoms of stream and then lay their eggs, which is later fertilized by a male. After fertilization the female uses her tail to cover-up the eggs. The gravel material is important because it leave gaps for water to pass though which carries oxygen to the eggs. Without the oxygen the eggs will die. Deforestation and construction near streams have lead to an increase in silt (dirt) in the water. The silt will eventually settle and can fill the gaps in the gravel, burying brook trout eggs.

Siltation



Effectiveness

CompetitionBefore human intervention the Lake Superior nearshore fish community was dominated lake whitefish, lake trout, and brook trout. However after the collapse of many native fish stock non-native fish were stocked to fill the top-predator ecological niche and to satisfy sportfishery demands. Many of these species are still stocked to this day. Little is known exactly how these species interact and to what extent stocked sportfish limit the reestablishment of coasters. Unfortunately for coasters, many of these species likely compete for resources with coasters, and in Lake Superior where food is scarce can may exclude coaster populations from returning.



Effectiveness

AnglersAnglers

Federal, State, and Tribal governments

Federal, State, and Tribal governments

IndustryIndustry

ConservationistsConservationists

Stakeholders



Effectiveness

ConflictsLake Superior Steelhead Association - Angling organization that supports he stocking of steelheads which are a non-native fish species

Trout unlimited -Supports conservation of native trout populations, however does not support stocking of non-native trout species such as steelheads

Vs.

Vs.

Cooperation



Effectiveness



Vs.

Kennecott Eagle Mining Company – wants to put in a nickel mine in the Salmon Trout river tributary, where one of the last remaining US coaster population exists

Vs.

Various conservation groups- claim that the sulfide released from the nickel mining project could negatively impact one of the few remaining coaster populations left in the US

Cooperation



Effectiveness



Vs.

Kennecott Eagle Mining Company – wants to put in a nickel mine in the Salmon Trout river tributary, where one of the last remaining US coaster population exists

Vs.


Cooperation



Effectiveness



Vs.

Kennecott Mineral Co. – wants to put in a nickel mine in the Salmon Trout river tributary, where one of the last remaining US coaster population exists

Vs.


Cooperation

State, federal, and tribal governments have began to work together under the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission. These groups have worked together successfully in the past to restore the lake trout populations in Lake Superior and have made coaster brook trout restoration a priority. The great Lakes Fisheries Commission has no jurisdictional power, but it provides a mechanism for the many agencies involved in fisheries management to coordinate restoration strategies.



Effectiveness

Relevant Legislation Endangered Species Act

Provides funding and protection for species listed

Clean Water ActRequires that industries adhere to pollution discharge regulations. These regulations are enforced by the Environmental Protection Agency

Magnuson-Stevens ActCould potentially provide funding for protection and management of coasters



Effectiveness

On February 22nd 2006, the Sierra Club and the Huron Mountain Club petition for Coasters to be added to the Endangered Species list.

The Endangered Species Act



Effectiveness


The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) was not able to review the petition that year due to budget constraints and higher priority cases.




Effectiveness


The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) was not able to review the petition that year due to budget constraints and higher priority cases.

On March 20th 2008, the FWS found substantial information to warrant its consideration to be listed under the Endangered Species Act

You Are Here




Effectiveness

Need To Get Here


You Are Here



Effectiveness

Need To Get Here


You Are Here



Effectiveness

Need To Get Here


You Are Here



Effectiveness

What can the ESA do for coasters?The endangered Species Act could provide protection for coasters in several ways:

1. It would make it illegal to kill or take a coaster. This could help reduce fishing mortality.2. Part of the ESA involves setting aside critical habitat for the species restoration3. Would create a recovery plan to coordinate efforts between government agencies (this already exists via the GLFC)4. Would stop government activities that put coasters at risk such as: stocking non-native species, road construction, and giving permits for mining and lumber industries.



Effectiveness

Effectiveness of the ESA

This figure shows the importance of setting aside a critical habitat and a dedicated recovery plan to the recovery of endangered species. For coasters setting aside additional habitat for restoration and protection could help bring back population to areas where they no longer inhabit

The ESA has a cumulative effect. The longer a species is on the list the higher the probability that the species populations will be increasing and the lower the probability that the populations will decline. The ESA would likely improve coasters chances of recovery.

Restart the Presentation

Resources References Appendix About FCF



Effectiveness

End the Presentation

Hewitt LE, Mumford KG, Schreiner DR, Fischer GJ (2008) Coaster Brook Trout Rehabilitation in Lake Superior: A Human Dimensions Perspective. North American Journal of Fisheries Management: Vol. 28, No. 4 pp. 1365–1372

Huckins CJ, Baker EA (2008) Migrations and Biological Characteristics of Adfluvial Coaster Brook Trout in a South Shore Lake Superior Tributary. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society: Vol. 137, No. 4 pp. 1229–1243

Huckins CJ, Baker EA, Fausch KD, Leonard JBK (2008) Ecology and Life History of Coaster Brook Trout and Potential Bottlenecks in Their Rehabilitation. North American Journal of Fisheries Management: Vol. 28, No. 4 pp. 1321–1342

TAYLOR MFJ, SUCKLING KF, RACHLINSKI JJ (2005) The Effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act: A Quantitative Analysis. BioScience: Vol. 55, No. 4 pp. 360–367

Schreiner DR, Cullis KI, Donofrio MC, Fischer GJ, Hewitt L, et al. (2008) Management Perspectives on Coaster Brook Trout Rehabilitation in the Lake Superior Basin. North American Journal of Fisheries Management: Vol. 28, No. 4 pp. 1350–1364

Sloss BL, Jennings MJ, Franckowiak R, Pratt DM (2008) Genetic Identity of Brook Trout in Lake Superior South Shore Streams: Potential for Genetic Monitoring of Stocking and Rehabilitation Efforts. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society: Vol. 137, No. 4 pp. 1244–1251

References

Documents

Coaster Brook Trout in the Great Lakes