Download F-81-R-2, Michigan

F-81-R-10, Michigan
Study 237014
New Proposal: 2008-09
Name of Study: Monitoring of stream ecosystems through statewide status and trends protocol
(SSTP) surveys.
A. Problem: To support sport fishery management and conservation planning needs for streams
throughout Michigan, a coordinated, systematic approach is needed to conduct stream ecosystem
surveys and develop the subsequent database. With more than 36,000 miles of diverse stream
ecosystems within the state, a coordinated systematic sampling program is advantageous to
address the issues fisheries managers face with aquatic resource protection, sport fishery
management, and rehabilitation of streams throughout the state.
The diverse streams throughout the state provide a wide range of habitat types for numerous fish
species as well as providing social and economic benefits through recreational activities. These
streams support a wide variety of recreational activities including fishing, boating, canoeing,
trapping, swimming, and natural scenic beauty. In additional to providing habitat for inland fish
species these streams also provide spawning and nursery habitat for many Great Lakes migratory
species such as lake sturgeon, Chinook salmon, coho salmon, steelhead, and walleye, which
contribute to Great Lakes fisheries.
Historically, Fisheries Division monitored the conditions of a limited number (1-5) of streams and
focused only on key game species such as trout with little information collected on multiple
landscape features, instream habitats, and other fish species. When streams support both
important and sensitive species (e.g. coldwater streams with trout), data are not only needed to
track species trends, but also to develop models and test hypotheses behind the trends, such as
changes in habitat, aquatic assemblage, or climatic conditions. Although some information
describing species other than game fishes exists, the additional data required to determine
population status, composition of the associated community, and habitat conditions is lacking
thereby precluding a holistic approach to stream management, conservation planning, and
resource protection.
A statewide approach and a commitment to timely information assembly, analysis, and
dissemination are critical to program success through time. Standardized survey and monitoring
programs for streams will provide information on the distribution, abundance, habitat
requirements, and threats for all aquatic taxa. That information will allow development of
realistic goals and objectives for strategic stream management plans. Continued monitoring
through time will ensure progress towards those management goals and objectives.
Because aquatic assemblages are structured by both regional- and site-scale factors, spatially and
temporally extensive quantitative data are needed to better describe the status and trends of
Michigan’s stream communities and habitats. Description of the population status and detecting
change in these streams requires a systematic long term-term monitoring program. In addition, a
long term monitoring program will better enable determination of the extent that spatial or
temporal patterns in aquatic communities result from landscape features, instream habitat
characteristics, or regional factors such as climate.
All data collected by Fisheries Division field staff are entered into a statewide database known as
the Fish Collection System (FCS). The FCS was introduced in 1994 and was recently upgraded
to accommodate a wide range of variables including in-channel and riparian habitat condition. In
addition to storing data, biologists will use the FCS to produce standardized reports and conduct
basic analyses for the site-specific data. Biologists will use the information from site-specific
data collection efforts and compare them with the synthesized data analyzed for similar
streamfish communities throughout the state for developing individual management plans. The
F-81-R-10, Study 237014–2
developed plans guide fishery management for stocking efforts, harvest regulations, or habitat
protection and improvement.
To that end, in 1995, the Fisheries Division created the Resource Inventory Planning (RIP)
committee to formulate and implement a standardized, statewide sampling plan for Michigan’s
streams. That plan became reality in 2002 with the initiation of the stream status and trends
program (Hayes et al. 2003).
B. Objectives:
1. Conduct 65-75 comprehensive status and trends ecosystem surveys of streams throughout
Michigan in the 2009 field season (Table 1).
2. Record and summarize the data from the 2009 field season.
3. Analyze and report on surveys collected in previous field seasons.
C. Expected Results and Benefits: The information collected in this project allows us to
standardize sampling approaches and adds strength to the statistical basis for making sitespecific analysis and regional comparisons. The sampling design and standardized sampling
methods enables statewide assessment of the current status of streams and description of
temporal trends in the resource. In complementary study 230737, data collected from stream
surveys throughout the state will be pooled or combined with stream classification
information to develop benchmarks for use in stream resource assessment, stocking
evaluations, evaluation of regulations, and habitat management planning, protection, and
restoration efforts for stream fish communities. For particularly important and valuable
resources, such as cold medium-sized rivers, not only will comparable temporal trend data be
available throughout the state, but we will have the ability to both describe the spatial extend
to the trend (e.g. local, regional, or statewide) and to explore plausible hypotheses for
observed trends.
Information collected through this survey program will help answer many important
questions related to management of streams including: What is the status of selected stream
fish communities in Michigan? What trends have occurred or are occurring in these
communities? What are the threats to these communities? How do present population levels
compare with long-term averages? What short term, long term, local, regional-, or largerscale factors are contributing to the current status? Are management planning efforts
achieving desired objectives for games species and their associated fish communities? If
management efforts are not meeting desired objectives, what further management actions are
required?
Individual managers will use the site-specific survey information for evaluating harvest
regulations, stocking prescriptions, and stream habitat management planning or rehabilitation.
Managers will be able to compare site-specific information with benchmarks established for
similar streams throughout the state.
F-81-R-10, Study 237014–3
D. Procedure: The design of this project incorporates two different, yet complementary types of
sampling. A stratified random sampling design provides spatially extensive information on the
status of fish communities and habitat in Michigan streams. In addition to providing a
comprehensive inventory of stream resources, this randomized design will address questions that
are best answered through comparisons of many different stream ecosystems (e.g. determining
the relationships between individual habitat variables and fish community composition). The
other type of sampling involves repeated sampling at fixed sites throughout the state. The
information collected at fixed sites is used to identify trends in streams supporting sensitive
aquatic resources (e.g., high-quality groundwater dependent communities) and test hypotheses
related to regional or statewide temporal trends in important fish community and habitat
parameters.
Stratified random sampling.–We use a stratified random design for describing the status of our
stream resources. The primary use of these data is to characterize different types of streams in the
state, and to answer questions best answered by comparing different streams. These data will also
provide a low-resolution (yet statistically robust) means for evaluating temporal trends among
different types (strata) of streams. However, differences among sites and streams within strata
will add considerable variation to the “mean condition” for the year, making it difficult to detect
subtle changes. The primary sampling unit is the river valley segment (Baker, 2006, Seelbach et
al. 1997), stratified according to management unit, temperature class, and stream size (defined by
drainage area, Table 1).
Fixed site sampling.–We use a network of fixed sites within strata (rather than a stratified random
sampling approach) to obtain a high-resolution picture of temporal trends in, and increase our
understanding of, stream types supporting valuable fisheries (e.g. better quality, wadeable, wild
trout and smallmouth bass streams, Table 2). Use of fixed sites allows us to control for river- and
site-level characteristics such as river hydrology, local channel characteristics, and woody debris
abundance that exert consistent, and often considerable, influence on fish abundance (Wiley et al.
1997). The focus of fixed-site sampling is to describe long-term trends and baseline variation in
lotic systems and ecosystem study (hypothesis testing regarding trends). Stocked streams are not
included as a sampling stratum because we judged that evaluations of populations in these
streams would be more efficient in the context of management or stocking evaluations. Fixed
sites are sampled in a 3 years “on”, 3 years “off” rotation to provide broader geographic coverage.
Fixed sampling sites are dispersed throughout the state with the sampling effort for each stratum
being proportional to the geographic distribution of stream types. In other words, northern
Michigan has proportionately more trout sites, while southern Michigan has more bass sites.
Population estimates are made for salmonids to maintain continuity and comparability of data
over time, and catch per unit effort data are collected for all other species. Locations having
existing data collection programs, such as United States Geological Survey (USGS) gages and
long-term population estimate stations, are favored as fixed sites.
Further details regarding the sampling protocols are found in the following documents and are
also attached to this narrative:
• Manual of Fisheries Survey Methods II (Chapter 26; Fisheries Division Special Report
#25)
• Documenting changes in the distribution of Michigan fisheries (Policy Number 02.02.016)
• Conducting and recording management unit fisheries surveys (Policy Number 02.02.017)
• Conducting status and trends survey (Policy Number 02.02.018)
F-81-R-10, Study 237014–4
Job 1. Conduct fish community surveys using SSTP in 65-75 streams throughout Michigan.–
Fish community surveys will be conducted at random and fixed stream sites. Single-pass
electrofishing will be used to estimate the relative abundance of all fish species
encountered on each random site survey. For fixed site surveys, mark-recapture will be
used to estimate population size for salmonid species, while single pass electrofishing
will be used to estimate the abundance of smallmouth bass. Single-pass electrofishing
also will be used in year 2 of the 3 year rotation at fixed sites to estimate the relative
abundance of all fish species encountered during the survey. Electrofishing will be
conducted during from June 15 to October 15 to minimize seasonal sampling bias.
Job 2. Obtain age and growth data. Age and growth data will be collected for key species such
as salmonids and smallmouth bass encountered during stream surveys. For random
surveys, scale or dorsal fin ray samples will be collected from all species of interest. At
fixed sites, scale samples will be collected from all salmonids and smallmouth bass. A
minimum of ten scales per inch group will be collected from all species of interest
whenever possible.
Job 3. Characterize physical habitat and temperature conditions.–Standardized methods will be
used to evaluate stream width, water depth, substrate, bank stability, riparian vegetation,
discharge, and abundance of large woody debris. Temperature loggers will be deployed
in survey streams to record hourly temperatures from June 1 to August 31 and possibly
all year.
Job 4. Document amphibian, reptile, and threatened and endangered species observations.–This
job is to provide support and assistance to data collection efforts for Michigan’s Wildlife
Action Plan. Observations of both amphibians and reptiles will come at no additional
cost to the study, but will provide insight to the overall health of the aquatic ecosystem.
Job 5. Data entry and analysis. Data will be entered for all surveys conducted in the 2009 field
season. Data will be analyzed, summarized and reported for previous year’s sampling
efforts.
Job 6. Write annual or final performance report.
E. Schedule/Budget:
Proposed work
Job 1 Conduct fish community surveys
Job 2 Obtain age and growth data
Job 3 Characterize physical habitat and temperature conditions
Document amphibian, reptile, and threatened and endangered species
Job 4 observations
Job 5 Data entry and analysis
Job 6 Write annual or final performance report
Personnel Costs
Associated travel and other expenses
Total
F
2009-10
X
X
X
X
X
X
$298,053.00
$ 20,076.00
$318,129.00
Geographical Location: The survey sites are distributed throughout Michigan (Table 1)
F-81-R-10, Study 237014–5
G. Personnel: Kurt Newman, Lake Huron Basin Coordinator (project manager), Field station
biologists and technicians for the following field units: Western Lake Superior, Eastern Lake
Superior, Northern Lake Huron, Northern Lake Michigan, Central Lake Michigan, Southern Lake
Huron, Southern Lake Michigan, and Lake Erie.
F-81-R-10, Study 237014–6
Literature Cited:
Baker, E.A. 2006. A landscape-based ecological classificiation system for iver valley segments in
Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Research
Report 2085, Ann Arbor.
Hayes, D., E. Baker, R. Bednarz, D. Borgeson, Jr., J. Braunscheidel, J. Breck, M. Bremigan, A.
Harrington, R. Hay, R. Lockwood, A. Nuhfer, J. Schneider, P. Seelbach, J. Waybrant, and T.
Zorn. 2003. Developing a standardized sampling program: The Michigan experience. Fisheries
28(7): 18-24.
Seelbach, P. W. and M. J. Wiley. 1997. Overview of the Michigan rivers inventory project.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Technical Report 97-3, Ann Arbor.
Seebach, P. W., M. J. Wiley, M. E. Baker, and K. E. Wehrly. 2006. Initial classification of river
valley segments across Michigan’s Lower Peninsula. Pages 25-48 in R. M. Huges, L. Wang, and
P. W. Seelbach, editors. Landscape influences on stream habitats and biological assemblages.
American Fisheries Society Symposium 48, Bethesda, Maryland.
F-81-R-10, Study 237014–7
Table 1. Streams selected for sampling using the statewide Streams Status and Trends Protocol in
2009.
Stream
Haynes Creek
Wolf Creek
Mosquito River
Rock River
Schnable Brook
Silver Creek (Rabbit)
Thunder Bay River
Jordan River
Au Gres River
Ravine
Coldwater River
Platte River
Swan Creek
Kalamazoo River
Pokagon Creek
Deer Creek
S Br Spring Brook
NB Carp River
N Br Tobacco River
N Chippewa
Looking Glass River
Au Sable River
E Br Au Sable
Manistee River
Wright Creek
Rapid River
Paint River
West Br Escanaba
Indian Creek
W Br Maple River
Shiawassee River
Middle Br Ontonagon
Boardman River
Traverse River
W Br Sturgeon River
Wiscoggin Drain
County
Alcona
Alcona
Alger
Alger
Allegan
Allegan
Alpena
Antrim
Arenac
Baraga
Barry/Kent
Benzie
Branch
Calhoun
Cass
Charlevoix
Charlevoix
Chippewa
Clare
Clare
Clinton
Crawford
Crawford
Crawford
Crawford
Delta
Dickinson
Dickinson
Eaton
Emmett
Genesee
Gogebic
Grand Traverse
Houghton
Houghton
Huron
Stream
County
Brule River
Grand River
Spring Brook
N Br Manistee River
Coldwater River
Gratiot
Little Manistee River
Pere Marquette River
Black Ck-Raisin
Huron (below Kent Lk)
Tahquamenon River
W Br Sage River
Bryan Creek
Chocolay River
E Br Escanaba River
Chippewa Creek
River Raisin
Thunder Bay River
Houghton Creek
Big Iron River
Middle Br Ontonagon
Middle Branch River
Perry Creek
W Br Big Creek
Pigeon River
East Branch Fox River
Little Indian River
N Br Stutts Creek
Hovey Drain
Shiawassee River
Prairie River
N Br White Ck.
S Br White Creek
Huron River
Middle Rouge
Iron
Jackson
Kalamazoo
Kalkaska
Kent
Keweenaw
Lake
Lake
Lenawee
Livingston
Luce
Luce
Marquette
Marquette
Marquette
Mecosta
Monroe
Montmorency
Ogemaw
Ontonagon
Ontonagon
Osceola
Oscoda
Oscoda
Otsego
Schoolcraft
Schoolcraft
Schoolcraft
Shiawassee
Shiawassee
St. Joseph
Tuscola
Tuscola
Wayne
Wayne