Download 2000-01 New

F-81-R-2, Michigan
Study 513
New Study
2000-01
513. Name of Study: Evaluation of returns of salmonids to weirs in Michigan’s waters of the Great
Lakes.
A. Problem: Data on returns of stocked salmon and trout to Michigan rivers is used in many Great
Lakes management and research efforts. With the completion of Study 471 in 2000, several
problems related to biological data collection at weirs need to be addressed. We do not currently
have plans for an ongoing research study devoted to the objective of monitoring and recording
river returns and weir harvest. Additionally, we have, in the past, relied on returns of known age
fish at weirs to provide us with an annual index of chinook salmon growth. Without a study
dedicated to this objective, we will most likely lose this valuable piece of information. Salmon
harvest operations have traditionally been contracted to a private concern outside of the MDNR.
It is critical to have a mechanism in place to monitor and report on these harvest operations.
B. Objectives: (1) To annually monitor and record returns of chinook salmon, coho salmon, and
steelhead trout to Michigan weir operation facilities. (2) To mark chinook salmon, coho salmon,
and steelhead trout at index sites and provide annual estimates of size at age. (3) To collect data
and report on contracted salmon harvest operations. (4) To provide annual data summaries of
weir returns to be used in Management Unit reports, GLFC reports, MDNR web site updates, and
for distribution to interested researchers and the public.
Justification: Steelhead were first successfully introduced into Lake Michigan in the 1870’s, while
chinook and coho salmon were successfully established in the late 1960’s (Mills et al. 1993).
Since their initial introduction, these fish have been widely stocked throughout the Great Lakes.
The result has been the creation of a high profile, multimillion-dollar sport fishery (Talhelm
1987; Jamsen 1990; Keller and Smith 1990). Because these salmonids are not native to the Great
Lakes, and the fishery cannot currently be sustained by natural reproduction, our management
options are primarily restricted to adjusting stocking rates and controlling overfishing. To adjust
stocking rates accurately, we need information on relative species abundance, age composition
and growth, mortality rates, disease incidence, and return rates. To effectively implement
meaningful regulations, we need to know a great deal more about salmonid population dynamics
in Lake Michigan. Ongoing, systematic assessments of trout and salmon populations provide us
with an opportunity to be proactive rather than reactive in our management of these species. The
popularity and economic value of the fishery justify this type of monitoring program for Lake
Michigan salmonids.
Collection of long-term, consistent, fishery-independent data is an essential component of fisheries
stock assessment and management (Kline 1996). This type of data on Great Lakes salmonids is
currently sought by researchers throughout the Great Lakes region for use in ecosystem modeling
efforts (see, for example; Jones et al. 1993, Stewart and Ibarra 1991, and Kitchell and Crowder
1986) that could strongly influence salmonid management in the Great Lakes. Without the
appropriate input data, the models resulting from these efforts would not be useful, and could in fact
be counterproductive to successful management of the Great Lakes fish community. Continued
collection of data on weir returns of salmonids (a key input to many models) would assist managers
immediately, help fine-tune existing models, and aid in the development of new models. It would
also eventually lead to the predictive ability we need to manage the Great Lakes ecosystem on a
sustained basis.
F-81-R-2, Study 513 - 2
Beginning in 1990, the responsibility for harvest weir data collection was shifted to Federal Aid
Study 471. The switch to Study 471 was made for several reasons: (1) To consolidate data
collection and reporting for the weir harvest audit report, which serves to reconcile payments
related to surplus salmon harvest; (2) to standardize and improve efficiency of data collection for
production of annual weir harvest technical reports (MDNR Fish Division Technical Report
series); and (3) to improve collection of coded-wire tags from chinook salmon returning to weirs
(various statewide CWT research studies). All of these reasons are still important, and they
justify the continuation of this data collection under a new Federal Aid study.
The previous study (471) addressed collection of data at fall harvest weirs, but spring steelhead egg
take operations were not evaluated. Monitoring and reporting on spring steelhead runs is as
important to the management of this species as is the fall data collection to chinook and coho
salmon management. The proposed study will combine spring and fall data collection operations
into a single coordinated operation with standard databases, collection, and reporting procedures.
Status: Biological data on salmon and trout at rivers with harvest weirs has been collected for
greater than 20 years. In recent years (1990-present), this data has been collected and
summarized as part of Federal Aid Study 471. Lake Michigan managers and researchers recently
conducted a review of the weir data collection procedure; the proposed study reflects the
agreement by management and research personnel to implement a new Federal Aid study with
responsibilities solely for continued collection of data from weirs. This will be an ongoing task that
will provide managers with the necessary knowledge to make prudent and justifiable management
decisions for the long-term benefit of Great Lakes fisheries.
Literature Cited:
Jamsen, G. 1990. Economics. Pages 195-209 in M. Keller, K. D. Smith, and R. Rybicki, editors.
Review of salmon and trout management in Lake Michigan. Michigan Department of Natural
Resources, Fisheries Special Report 14, Ann Arbor.
Jones M. L., J. F. Koonce, and R. O’Gorman. 1993. Sustainability of hatchery-dependent
salmonine fisheries in Lake Ontario: the conflict between predator demand and prey supply.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 122:1002-1018.
Keller, M., and K. D. Smith. 1990. Introduction. Pages 1-13 in M. Keller, K. D. Smith, and R.
Rybicki, editors. Review of salmon and trout management in Lake Michigan. Michigan
Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Special Report 14, Ann Arbor.
Kitchell, J. F., and L. B. Crowder. 1986. Predator-prey interactions in Lake Michigan: model
predictions and recent dynamics. Environmental Biology of Fishes 16:205-211.
Kline, L. 1996. Fisheries research under fire: more than just a money issue. Fisheries 21(6):4.
Mills, E. L., J. H. Leach, J. T. Carlton, and C. L. Secor. 1993. Exotic species in the Great Lakes: a
history of biotic crises and anthropogenic introductions. Journal of Great Lakes Research 19:154.
Stewart, D. J., and M. Ibarra. 1991. Predation and production by salmonid fishes in Michigan,
1978-88. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 48:909-922.
F-81-R-2, Study 513 - 3
Talhelm, D. R. 1987. Economics of Great Lakes fisheries: A 1985 assessment. Great Lakes
Fishery Commission, Technical Report 54, Ann Arbor.
E. Procedure:
Job (1) Monitor and record data on returns of chinook salmon, coho salmon, and steelhead trout
to Michigan weir operation facilities.
In coordination with management unit personnel, we will collect data on chinook and
coho salmon weir returns (and other biological data) at the designated harvest/processing
plant. Data on steelhead and other (non-harvested) trout will be collected at facilities
throughout the state. Charlevoix study personnel will be responsible for designing and
maintaining the weir databases, in coordination with Lansing Information Technology
personnel.
Job (2) Mark chinook salmon, coho salmon, and steelhead trout at index sites, and provide
annual estimates of size at age and percent return.
Initially, we will plan for the marking of chinook salmon stocked in the Little Manistee
River. Other sites and / or species will be included as a need is determined. Actual coded
wire tag marking will be conducted as part of Study 464, Coded wire tag marking of
salmonines in the Great Lakes.
Job (3) Report on contracted salmon harvest operations.
Data collected by management unit personnel will be summarized in a standard audit
report for use in reconciling financial arrangements between the MDNR and contracted
harvester.
Job (4) Produce annual data summaries of weir returns for use in Management Unit reports,
GLFC reports, MDNR web site updates, and for distribution to interested researchers
and the public.
Charlevoix staff will develop a summary report template and provide annual updates to
the template, to be used by management unit personnel in completing annual weir
operations and egg take technical reports. In addition, we will develop data summary
formats appropriate for web distribution, evaluate sources of variability (date, weir, year,
etc.) in biological data, and make recommendations for changes and improvements to
data collection.
Job (5) Write final report.
A final report will be completed, summarizing previously published findings from Jobs 1-4.
Reports describing work in Jobs 1-4 will be written as analyses are completed.
Job (6) Publish final report.
Publish report through the Fisheries Division's editing and finishing process for Research
and Technical reports.
F-81-R-2, Study 513 - 4
F. Schedule:
Year
Work planned
2000-01
Job 1. Monitor and record data at weir operation facilities.
Job 2. Mark salmon and trout.
Job 3. Report on contracted salmon harvest operations.
Job 4. Produce annual data summaries.
2001-02
Job 1. Monitor and record data at weir operation facilities.
Job 2. Mark salmon and trout.
Job 3. Report on contracted salmon harvest operations.
Job 4. Produce annual data summaries.
2002-03
Job 1. Monitor and record data at weir operation facilities.
Job 2. Mark salmon and trout.
Job 3. Report on contracted salmon harvest operations.
Job 4. Produce annual data summaries.
2003-04
Job 1. Monitor and record data at weir operation facilities.
Job 2. Mark salmon and trout.
Job 3. Report on contracted salmon harvest operations.
Job 4. Produce annual data summaries.
2004-05
Job 1. Monitor and record data at weir operation facilities.
Job 2. Mark salmon and trout.
Job 3. Report on contracted salmon harvest operations.
Job 4. Produce annual data summaries.
Job 5. Write final report.
2005-06
Job 6. Publish final report.
G. Geographical Location: Charlevoix Great Lakes Fishery Station, Charlevoix, Michigan;
Management unit offices and weir locations throughout Michigan.
H. Personnel: David F. Clapp, Fishery Research Biologist, Charlevoix; Jory L. Jonas, Fishery
Research Biologist, Charlevoix; John Clevenger, Fisheries Technician, Charlevoix; Fisheries
Division personnel at Management Unit offices and weir facilities throughout Michigan; Research
Administrative personnel, and contract editor.