Transcript FLL_CS7draft - Fisheries Conservation Foundation

Introduction
History
Science
Conflicts
Relevant
Legislation
Coaster Brook Trout in the
Great Lakes
Legislative
Effectiveness
Introduction
History
Science
Conflicts
Relevant
Legislation
Table of Contents
• Introduction
• History
• Science and Threats to
Restoration
• Relevant Legislation
• Legislative Effectiveness
• References
Legislative
Effectiveness
Introduction
History
Science
Conflicts
Relevant
Legislation
Legislative
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.”
Introduction
History
Science
Conflicts
Relevant
Legislation
Legislative
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.
Introduction
History
Science
Conflicts
Relevant
Legislation
Legislative
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.
Introduction
History
Science
Conflicts
Relevant
Legislation
Legislative
Effectiveness
Life history of a Coaster
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.
Introduction
History
Science
Conflicts
Relevant
Legislation
Legislative
Effectiveness
Life history of a Coaster
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.
Introduction
History
Science
Conflicts
Relevant
Legislation
Other Coaster traits
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!
Legislative
Effectiveness
Introduction
History
Science
Conflicts
Relevant
Legislation
Legislative
Effectiveness
Other Coaster traits
Other differences between coasters and stream dwelling brook trout
• Coasters
also differ
other
Coasters
also differ
fromfrom
other
populations of Brook Trout in size and
populations of brook trout in
color. Stream-dwelling
Brook Trout are generally between 7–9 inches
size and color. Stream dwelling
long, while
commonly reach sizes of over 26 inches in length.
brookCoasters
trout are generally
The largest
Coaster
Brook
Trout on record was caught in 1915, and
between
7-9 inches
while
was 34.5
inches
long.
coasters
commonly
reach sizes
•
of over 26 inches.
The largest coaster brook
trout was caught in 1915 and
was 34.5 inches long!
Introduction
History
Science
Conflicts
Relevant
Legislation
Legislative
Effectiveness
Historical distribution
Then
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
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.
Introduction
History
Science
Conflicts
Relevant
Legislation
Legislative
Effectiveness
Collapse
Early 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.
Introduction
History
Science
Conflicts
Relevant
Legislation
Legislative
Effectiveness
Early Management
After 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, selfsustaining population. Harvest restrictions were liberal and failed to curtail the collapse
of many coaster stocks.
Introduction
History
Science
Conflicts
Relevant
Legislation
Legislative
Effectiveness
Major concerns
Habitat loss
Competition
Fishing mortality
Introduction
History
Science
Conflicts
Relevant
Legislation
Angling mortality
Originally 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.
Legislative
Effectiveness
Introduction
Science
History
Conflicts
Relevant
Legislation
Legislative
Effectiveness
Habitat loss and degradation
Loss 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.
Siltation
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.
Introduction
History
Science
Conflicts
Relevant
Legislation
Legislative
Effectiveness
Competition
Before 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 toppredator 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.
Introduction
History
Science
Conflicts
Federal, State, and Tribal
governments
Relevant
Legislation
Conservationists
Stakeholders
Anglers
Legislative
Effectiveness
Industry
Introduction
History
Conflicts
Science
Relevant
Legislation
Legislative
Effectiveness
Conflicts
Lake Superior Steelhead
Association - Angling organization that
Vs.
supports he stocking of steelheads which are a
non-native fish species
Vs.
Cooperation
Trout unlimited Supports conservation of native trout
populations, however does not support
stocking of non-native trout species such as
steelheads
Introduction
History
Conflicts
Science
Relevant
Legislation
Legislative
Effectiveness
Conflicts
Lake Superior Steelhead
Association - Angling organization that
Vs.
supports he stocking of steelheads which are a
non-native fish species
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
Trout unlimited Supports conservation of native trout
populations, however does not support
stocking of non-native trout species such as
steelheads
Various conservation groups-
Vs.
Cooperation
claim that the sulfide released from the nickel
mining project could negatively impact one of
the few remaining coaster populations left in
the US
Introduction
History
Conflicts
Science
Relevant
Legislation
Legislative
Effectiveness
Conflicts
Lake Superior Steelhead
Association - Angling organization that
Vs.
supports he stocking of steelheads which are a
non-native fish species
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
Trout unlimited Supports conservation of native trout
populations, however does not support
stocking of non-native trout species such as
steelheads
Various conservation groups-
Vs.
Cooperation
claim that the sulfide released from the nickel
mining project could negatively impact one of
the few remaining coaster populations left in
the US
Introduction
History
Conflicts
Science
Relevant
Legislation
Legislative
Effectiveness
Conflicts
Lake Superior Steelhead
Association - Angling organization that
Vs.
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
Kennecott Mineral Co. –
Various conservation groups-
wants to put in a nickel mine in the Salmon
Trout river tributary, where one of the last
remaining US coaster population exists
claim that the sulfide released from the nickel
mining project could negatively impact one of
the few remaining coaster populations left in
the US
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.
Introduction
History
Science
Conflicts
Relevant
Legislation
Legislative
Effectiveness
Relevant Legislation
Endangered Species Act
Provides funding and protection
for species listed
Magnuson-Stevens Act
Could potentially provide funding
for protection and management of
coasters
Clean Water Act
Requires that industries adhere to
pollution discharge regulations. These
regulations are enforced by the
Environmental Protection Agency
Introduction
History
Science
Conflicts
Relevant
Legislation
Legislative
Effectiveness
The Endangered Species Act
On February 22nd 2006, the Sierra
Club and the Huron Mountain Club
petition for Coasters to be added
to the Endangered Species list.
Introduction
History
Science
Conflicts
Relevant
Legislation
Legislative
Effectiveness
The Endangered Species Act
On February 22nd 2006, the Sierra
Club and the Huron Mountain Club
petition for Coasters to be added
to the Endangered Species list.
The Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) was not able to review the
petition that year due to budget
constraints and higher priority
cases.
Introduction
History
Science
Conflicts
Relevant
Legislation
Legislative
Effectiveness
The Endangered Species Act
You Are Here
On February 22nd 2006, the Sierra Club
and the Huron Mountain Club petition
for Coasters to be added to the
Endangered Species list.
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
Introduction
History
Science
Conflicts
Relevant
Legislation
Legislative
Effectiveness
The Endangered Species Act
You Are Here
Need To Get Here
Introduction
History
Science
Conflicts
Relevant
Legislation
Legislative
Effectiveness
The Endangered Species Act
You Are Here
Need To Get Here
Introduction
History
Science
Conflicts
Relevant
Legislation
Legislative
Effectiveness
The Endangered Species Act
You Are Here
Need To Get Here
Introduction
History
Science
Conflicts
Relevant
Legislation
Legislative
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
restoration
3. 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.
Introduction
History
Science
Conflicts
Relevant
Legislation
Legislative
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.
Introduction
History
Science
Conflicts
Relevant
Legislation
Legislative
Effectiveness
References
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
Restart the
Presentation
End the
Presentation
Resources
References
Appendix
About FCF