Coasters to be put on endangered species list?

[Nate McVey]

Here's an article from the Duluth News Tribune today. What does everyone think? I read an article awhile back that said the Coasters were making a comeback. I would think putting them on the list and getting the federal funding couldn't hurt.

Federal wildlife officials consider listing coaster brook trout as endangered

Duluth News Tribune

Published Wednesday, March 19, 2008

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service today announced it is considering placing the beleaguered coaster brook trout on the federal endangered species list.

Agency officials said a petition by conservation groups to list the trout has merit, and that the agency now will closely evaluate the status of the fish that’s found only in the Great Lakes and their tributaries.

The Sierra Club’s Michigan Chapter and the Huron Mountain Club sued the government to force the issue. Under a settlement, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service now has until Dec. 15 to make a final decision whether to list the fish as endangered.

A federal listing could place new restrictions on harvesting brook trout in and near Lake Superior and may affect some human activities near the trout’s traditional spawning areas. And it could attract additional federal funding to help recover the population.

[DEADhead]

I've read articles last summer supporting data suggesting that coaster brook trout don't really exist, and that there is no distinct genetic differences between other brook trout strains in Superior. I wish I could find that article/publication again, because it was a fascinating read.

Regardless, brook trout spawning habitat is severely threated in areas like the UP where logging and mining often run unregulated and unmonitored, and cause massive amounts of silt to enter the streams covering precious spawning areas needed by brookies and other trout/salmon species. Listing coasters under the ESA would only help protect these areas.

On a side note, WI and MI need to quit stocking those frankenstein splake in the big lake, if they are serious about brook trout recovery. There have been documented cases by USFWS researchers that found splake/brook trout hybrids in known brook trout spawning areas. Many agencies claimed these fish were sterile, but that is not the case. They have very poor fecundity, but reproduction is still possible.

[kkahmann]

Deadhead is right--there is no genetic difference in strains--Nipigon Bay of Lake Superior--Nipigon River--Lake Nipigon all same same.

In the late '70s I was very concerned about the Speckled Trout on Lake Nipigon--Fish were few and far between. I was mostly concerned about fluctuating water levels caused by Ontario Hydro.

The MNR signed an agreement with Hydro to maintain suffcient water in the river during the winter--I thought this would help Specks in the river and Nipigon Bay but definatly hurt Lake Nipigon--draw the water down over the winter and leave the spawning beds high and dry. I really don't know what happened--speck fishing has continued to get better and better on Lake Nipigon.

One thing about listing coasters as endangered is that it will free up some money so people--educated well beyond their intelligence--can get funding to study them.

[Scott M]

I remember reading that article as well DEADhead. There is an annual coaster brook trout symposium and every year the topic of E.S. listing comes up. The trouble, if I remember correctly, is that from a taxonomic point of view, there still hasn't been an establishment of a subspecies for 'coaster' brook trout. It comes down to defining a species, which can be hard to do. Are they described morphologically or behaviorally? Are they described genetically? How do you differentiate one brook trout in a SE MN stream with a supposed "coaster" off Isle Royale? There is ongoing research but to my knowledge no clear distinction has been made, which will continue to hinder federal listing.

[DEADhead]

 Originally Posted By: da_chise31

How do you differentiate one brook trout in a SE MN stream with a supposed "coaster" off Isle Royale? There is ongoing research but to my knowledge no clear distinction has been made, which will continue to hinder federal listing.

Scott, I thought in the research Loren was doing that he was able to differentiate genetically using markers, the SE fish from the Lake Superior fish. That's how he helped identify the heritage strain from the eastern strains that were commonly used to stock streams across the US.

But you definitely bring up a good point about how do you define coasters and if it is behaviorally or morphologically. What has been used in the NW to differentiate between steelhead and rainbows? I know that there are genetic differences between the fish that enter different rivers. But are they genetically different from smolt that never leave their natal stream?

Interesting stuff for sure. There's just too much we don't know yet. kkahmann brings up a valid argument that listing under the ESA will likely free up dollars for more research.

[Nate McVey]

Great points you guys. I was hoping some of you that know what you're talking about would chime in

The silt/logging problem in MI you brought up Deadhead is a huge issue in my old stomping grounds. The Brookie is a treasured fish in the UP and a very "hot button" issue with a lot of people there. I know you also know how the Mainers feel about them as well. I would love to see something be done to help them make a comeback.

[lakerunner]

OK now DEADhead, I have a bone to pick.

I'm a procurement forester meaning that I buy pvt, county, state, and federal timber sales, hire a logger and harvest the wood. I am VERY familiar with logging restrictions and guidelines. Let me set some things straight.

I will agree that as late as 1970's logging/logging roads played a part in sediment in streams and it was/still is under huge scrunity because of public perceptions. The restrictions are very tight, do a great job with sediment control, and are just part of being responsible land managers.

BUT...it is very interesting to note that these restrictions do not and are not used by any local DOT!! Drive down any logging road that has a stream crossing and then drive down a county gravel road that also has a stream crossing. BIG difference!! You can count an infinite amount of times that the county has no rip-rap, improper culvert size, poor drainage control, and often when they grade the road, gravel/sand gets pushed right into the stream!

Why don't they change the crossing, change how they install future crossings? Because it costs $$$ and lots of it. However, us as land managers have to pay those costs when we harvest a timber sale!

I know that I'm off the subject but I wanted to set some of the issues straight. You might not be against logging (which would be great) but if you are, please note that the logging community does a lot for stream re-habilitation by our stream crossing, how and where we harvest timber, donating time (=$$)and equipment to helping the agencies with projects, etc. The other big source of problems is the development for permenant and seasonal housing in the watersheds--that plays a bigger role than one would think.

OK--I'm done venting! Now back to the subject at hand.

[DEADhead]

lakerunner, you bring up some good arguments about sediment control. I don't know why you have a bone to pick with me though; I was just shedding light on an obvious and real issue. Logging is STILL a problem with soil erosion and sediment control in sensitive watersheds. Even using BMPs (best management practices) there is still impact in the watershed when the soil is disturbed to build roads and harvest timber. At best, BMPs only reduce the impact these activities have on the landscape, and do not completely eliminate any risk or erosion. If you look at my earlier statement, I commented on the UP of Michigan, and made no reference to Minnesota. Minnesota is by no means perfect in terms of storm water management, but they are big differences between the requirements in this state than in Michigan. Logging may not have the impact that it used to, but it still has an impact. Anybody that says otherwise has their head in the sand. I won’t disagree with you on the fact that many highway departments do not follow BMP’s when constructing or maintaining roads. The DNR is very aware of this, and staff within Fisheries have been working with other government agencies and entities to adopt standardized principles for installing road culverts. The principles are based off of the MOSBOAC principles adopted by Sandy Verry. Currently I am not aware of any requirements by the state for placing these culverts. I applaud you for your efforts, if you uphold your logging contractors to proper land management techniques and BMP’s

Mining, however, is still the biggest threat to those streams, as there has been little regulation passed since the General Mining Act of 1872. The amount of damage mining has done to trout streams across the US is insurmountable. Many of the abandoned mines in this country are now Superfund sites. You know who pays for the cleanup of this toxic mess? Not the mining companies that profited from these sites, but the US taxpayer. Obviously there is not enough money to go around to even clean up most of the small superfund sites. Under NEPA and the environmental review process, there has been some help towards the fight against developing mines in sensitive areas. Unfortunately this is not enough, and new legislation is needed. There are efforts underway to revise the mining process, but as you can imagine the mining lobby is very powerful and has extremely deep pockets. I think it is a joke that mining companies can use federal land, for little to no cost, exploit the land, often beyond repair, and leave the mess for the general public to cleanup. It’s even worse if you’re an international company as pretty much any liability is thrown out the window. A good case example of this is the proposed Pebble Mine in Bristol Bay, Alaska.

For the record, I am not against logging or mining, but I am against poor irresponsible land management. Also, I am often involved in restoring many of these streams that were damaged by logging or other poor land management practices, so I speak from experience, and I do know what I’m talking about.

[thistlekicker]

 Originally Posted By: DEADhead

 Originally Posted By: da_chise31

How do you differentiate one brook trout in a SE MN stream with a supposed "coaster" off Isle Royale? There is ongoing research but to my knowledge no clear distinction has been made, which will continue to hinder federal listing.

Scott, I thought in the research Loren was doing that he was able to differentiate genetically using markers, the SE fish from the Lake Superior fish. That's how he helped identify the heritage strain from the eastern strains that were commonly used to stock streams across the US.

But you definitely bring up a good point about how do you define coasters and if it is behaviorally or morphologically. What has been used in the NW to differentiate between steelhead and rainbows? I know that there are genetic differences between the fish that enter different rivers. But are they genetically different from smolt that never leave their natal stream?

Interesting stuff for sure. There's just too much we don't know yet. kkahmann brings up a valid argument that listing under the ESA will likely free up dollars for more research.

It is not necessary to demonstrate genetic differentiation to be eligible for federal protection. Out West, some individual "stocks" of anadromous fish have been listed, despite little evidence of genetic differentation. For example, sockeye salmon are listed as endangered in the Snake River Basin but you can go to the supermarket and buy wild sockeye taken from well-managed fisheries. The individual stocks are called "Evolutionarily Signifiant Units" (ESUs). It is somewhat of a fuzzy term but does not necessarily require genetic differentiation.

I can see the possibility of a similar concept applied to "coasters", as it was a lake-dwelling form of brook trout that recolonized the entire region following the last glacial period. I would call that "evolutionarily significant"...

[DEADhead]

 Originally Posted By: thistlekicker

It is not necessary to demonstrate genetic differentiation to be eligible for federal protection. Out West, some individual "stocks" of anadromous fish have been listed, despite little evidence of genetic differentation.

The opposite argument to that is the case of trying to list the Arctic Grayling in the lower 48. There is a Distinct Population Segment and evolutionary difference between the fluvial fish found in the Upper Missouri drainage (Big Hole river) in Montana (and the extirpated populations of Michigan) from the populations found in Alaska. In 2007 Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior Julie MacDonald and other high ranking officials overturned the decision to list the Montana fluvial grayling based on arguments that the fluvial grayling populations are insignificant and their loss would be inconsequential given the presence of thriving populations in Alaska, and that they fluvial grayling shouldn't have been combined with the more common lake-dwelling grayling. What a bunch of baloney.

In another case of utter stupidity, the Department of the Interior felt it was appropriate to use hatchery raised fish to count toward the fish quota utilized to monitor endangered pacific salmon recovery efforts. As most of you already now, hatchery fish are in no way of similar or equal quality to wild born fish. They are not as competitive or adept to survival as wild fish. This is insane. The administration has made 100s of countless decisions that went against sound science. Fortunately, after countless lawsuits were filed against the USFWS and the Dept. of the Interior, Deputy Assistant Secretary Julie MacDonald resigned in late 2007, amid huge controversy.

I believe that if you can determine a genetic differentiation between "coaster" brook trout and fluvial brook trout, that could only help the cause of getting listed under the ESA. Like I said before, I'm still not convinced that there is any genetic differentiation of coaster brookies. However, I would like to see protection of their spawning habitat, as that will benefit all fish species, not just brook trout.

[Renneberg]

Here is a link to Coaster info.

USFWS Coaster DNA study

USFWS Coaster info

Good to hear that something is finally being done to restore this once world class fishery.

[lakerunner]

Actuall DEADhead, I didn't mean to pick a bone with you, just the comment that came out.

I was referring back to your comments about MI silt. Actually the MI bmp for streams crossings and sediment control are by far more stringent than MN and is one of the toughest in the US. I have worked extensively in MI, WI, and MN. I wish the MN could adopt some of MI policies.

I will agree that logging changes the landscape however I will disagree that it is one of the main contributors to erosion and loss of stream habitat. Maybe back at the turn of the century but not even close with in the last 50 years. It is the general publics preception that it does and hence more scrunity placed on logging.

Almost all of the time, road layout and timber harvesting results in less erosion than the prior stand. And/or provides a mean to control erosion that had already been taking place.

The other topic that does not get accounted for but has a HUGE impact are fisherman trails. By that I mean the pioneered trails that get built from people walking the shoreline to fishing spots. Those trails are usually on areas that are steep, mucky or sandy ground, and get easily packed down. Those trails provide a straight shot, easy flow for surface water. They erode quickly and the sediment dumps straight into the river. It doesn't hit most people's radar because each person only has a minor impact--but those add up (and quickly). Logging and roads are more visible hence higher level of preception.

[DEADhead]

good point about the angling trails. Another culprit are ATV trails, and angler trails that have been used by ATVs as well. Talk about a runway for sediment. Yes those trails are a point source for sediment runoff but are they a big contributer in the big picture of things? Likely not. I believe that they do add up collectively, but urban and agricultural development likely has a far bigger impact. And yes, timber is included as agriculture. I'm sure the road layout that lakerunner mentions are mainly well though out, and likely do have less impact than the prior stand. The problem is anytime you create a mono-culture stand, you often eliminate any understory vegetation, which in successional or complex climax forests, would act to help stabilize soils and minimize runoff. I don't want to nit-pick here, but to say that timber harvesting has very little or minimal impact to watersheds is irresponsible. Everything has an impact; it's all a matter of proper management of sediment control. I agree that there has been a lot of scrutiny placed on the timber industry, and regulations put in place. But it is still far from perfect, especially outside of the Midwest.

Also, I never mentioned anything about logging being a MAIN cause of sediment pollution, I just mentioned it as one of the causes. IMO, mining is one of the biggest threats to watershed management and healthy streams, followed by intensive agricultural use of row crops like corn and soybeans, and the impacts of urban/suburban development.

There has been some great, informative and civilzed discussion here. Let's keep it going.