Summary Statistics of the Mass Marking Recovery

Program on Lakes Michigan and Huron

Report #2017-05

Green Bay Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office

2661 Scott Tower Drive

New Franken, Wisconsin 54229

Phone: 920-866-1717; FAX 920-866-1761

2

Citation: Kornis, M. S., J. L. Webster, K. W. Pankow, A. A. Lane, S. R. Cressman, and C.R. Bronte. 2017. Summary Statistics of the Mass Marking Recovery Program on Lakes Michigan and Huron. Report #2017-05, USFWS-Green Bay Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office, New Franken, WI.

March 2017

Results are from fish tagged and recovered through the cooperative Great Lakes Mass Marking

Program

Funding provided by the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative

3

Summary Statistics of the Mass Marking Recovery Program on Lakes

Michigan and Huron

Matthew S. Kornis, James L. Webster, Kevin W. Pankow, Allen A. Lane,

Shannon R. Cressman, and Charles R. Bronte

Table of Contents

Map of statistical districts and offshore lake trout stocking locations…………………………….4

Number of fish examined each year………………………………………………………………5

Percent of wild Chinook salmon and lake trout examined in 2014 – 2016.....................................6

Estimated number of Chinook salmon smolts in L. Michigan by year class……………………...7

Relative survival index of Chinook salmon in statistical districts of lakes Michigan and Huron...8

Origin of angler-caught Chinook salmon in waters of Lake Michigan, overall and by state...…. .9

Origin of angler-caught lake trout in waters of Lake Michigan, overall and by state…………. .10

Origin of angler-caught lake trout in waters of Lake Michigan from offshore and nearshore

stocking locations…………………………………...……………………………………………11

Average and maximum length of each species from each statistical district (2012-2016)...……12

4

Figure 1: Map of statistical districts and offshore lake trout stocking locations in Lake

Michigan and the United States waters of Lake Huron.

5

Table 1: Number of fish examined by the Great Lakes Mass Marking Program, and

number with fin clips and coded-wire tags (CWTs), by species, lake and year. All stocked

Chinook salmon have received a fin clip and CWT since the 2011 year class. All stocked lake

trout have received a rotated fin clip since the mid 1960’s, and an adipose fin clip plus CWT

since the 2010 year class. Most stocked rainbow trout, brown trout, and coho salmon do not

receive a fin clip or CWT; clips and tags for these species are from a handful of specific studies.

Lake Michigan Lake Huron

Recovery

Year

Number

Examined

Number

w/ Fin

Clip

Number

with CWT

Number

Examined

Number

w/ Fin

Clip

Number

with CWT

Chinook salmon

2012 9,922 1,776 1,712 240 49 48

2013 7,336 2,426 2,283 248 71 70

2014 12,170 4,657 4,448 277 119 117

2015 8,865 2,722 2,645 130 76 75

2016 7,354 2,666 2,549 95 59 58

Lake trout

2012 512 463 196 426 289 39

2013 2,728 2,210 252 450 237 34

2014 3,781 3,169 415 621 309 89

2015 5,680 4,700 1,420 836 391 123

2016 5,547 4,694 2,400 803 387 110

Steelhead trout

2012 114 56 47 139 19 10

2013 2,080 219 82 152 28 25

2014 2,733 359 144 94 19 18

2015 2,830 379 171 96 13 14

2016 2,762 349 124 78 15 13

Coho salmon

2012 330 14 14 7 0 0

2013 3,417 49 37 29 0 0

2014 1,407 6 0 6 0 0

2015 2,155 2 0 42 0 0

2016 4,987 45 0 39 0 0

Brown trout

2012 6 2 0 7 1 0

2013 425 30 1 10 0 0

2014 656 55 4 1 0 0

2015 532 85 2 1 0 0

2016 459 79 1 2 0 0

Atlantic salmon

2012 0 0 0 9 4 0

2013 0 0 0 4 0 0

2014 1 1 0 31 29 1

2015 3 1 0 19 16 1

2016 1 1 0 28 27 15

6

Table 2: Percent of Chinook salmon and lake trout examined by Great Lakes Mass

Marking Program technicians during 2014 – 2016 that were wild (without a fin clip or

CWT) by statistical district. Sample sizes are in parentheses. Only fish from samples in which

all Chinook salmon and lake trout were examined are included; as a result, sample sizes for

lakewide totals are less than reported in Table 1. Fish from all ages are included. Gray font

indicates sample size < 20.

Statistical

district Chinook salmon Lake trout

2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2016

Lake Michigan

ILL 56.4 (928) 61.2 (273) 67.1 (566) 39.0 (41) 43.5 (246) 27.5 (400)

IND 65.6 (694) 65.5 (220) 69.1 (249) 18.8 (860) 18.0 (1665) 18.8 (1939)

MM1/WM1 56.4 (117) 62.2 (246) 48.7 (232) n/a (0) n/a (0) n/a (0)

MM2 72.4 (134) 64.1 (64) 61.9 (84) 0.0 (11) 1.4 (71) 0.0 (29)

MM3 60.6 (33) 50 (2) 18.2 (11) 3.3 (90) 3.0 (101) 0.0 (63)

MM4 66.7 (105) 66.7 (3) 50.0 (18) 2.0 (51) 0.0 (2) 8.7 (23)

MM5 80.8 (1037) 80.6 (325) 84.1 (132) 12.8 (188) 7.6 (132) 11.4 (114)

MM6 74.1 (1566) 79.7 (930) 82.3 (271) 14.3 (491) 8.0 (288) 7.5 (120)

MM7 62 (1355) 74.3 (672) 69.5 (308) 8.2 (536) 7.4 (1026) 8.9 (508)

MM8 59.8 (962) 65.9 (355) 75.4 (57) 15.0 (314) 23.8 (361) 15.5 (163)

WM3 42.8 (514) 69.2 (916) 60.1 (430) 0.0 (17) 7.7 (26) 12.5 (8)

WM4 41.6 (1254) 67 (2659) 58.9 (1415) 9.2 (229) 16.8 (339) 14.6 (89)

WM5 51.9 (1965) 65.7 (1597) 61.8 (1920) 18.8 (847) 20.4 (1107) 19.7 (269)

WM6 54.8 (467) 51.5 (66) 65.8 (853) 36.5 (255) 24.9 (430) 18.9 (265)

L. Michigan 59.8 (11131) 68.9 (8328) 63.5 (6546) 16.3 (3930) 17.2 (5794) 17.1 (3990)

Lake Huron

MH1 48.7 (189) 25.7 (70) 22.2 (54) 67.0 (112) 77.8 (162) 61.4 (57)

MH2 100 (13) 100 (2) 83.3 (6) 44.0 (191) 33.5 (260) 52.2 (362)

MH3 60 (5) 100 (3) 66.7 (3) 47.3 (224) 52.2 (247) 70.1 (57)

MH5 100 (9) 100 (8) (0) 52.3 (65) 58.7 (121) 70.1 (134)

MH6 100 (6) 100 (13) 85.7 (14) 44.8 (29) 69.6 (46) 39.5 (81)

Lake Huron 55.4 (222) 45.8 (96) 40.3 (77) 50.2 (621) 53.2 (836) 54.7 (691)

7

Table 3: Number of stocked Chinook salmon smolts, and estimated number of wild Chinook

salmon smolts, recruiting to the Lake Michigan population by year class. Stocked values include a

portion of the Chinook salmon stocked into northern Lake Huron based on evidence that those fish move

into Lake Michigan during spring and summer to feed. The number of wild smolts is calculated from the

known number of stocked smolts and the percentage of wild Age-1 Chinook salmon from each year class.

Estimates from the 2013 – 2015 year classes accounted for sampling and angler effort and were the

average of statistical district-specific estimates of % wild at Age-1. Estimates from 2006 – 2012 year

classes did not account for effort and were calculated from lakewide totals.

Year Class

No. Stocked

(millions)

Percent moving from

L. Huron to L.

Michigan

Percent

wild at

Age 1

Number

wild

(millions)

Total number

smolts

(millions)

OTC

2006 3.33 57.5 4.51 7.84

2007 3.97 95 55.3 4.92 8.89

2008 3.50 95 53.5 4.03 7.53

2009 3.80 95 54.4 4.54 8.34

CWT

2010 4.08 95 63.0 6.94 11.02 2011 3.93 95 54.0 4.62 8.55 2012 3.87 95 63.8 6.82 10.68 2013 2.38 90 38.6 1.50 3.88 2014 2.45 96 59.8 3.65 6.10

2015 2.45 95 48.6 2.32 4.77

Figure 1: Number of stocked Chinook salmon smolts (orange), and estimated number of wild

Chinook salmon smolts (blue), recruiting to the Lake Michigan population by year class.

8

For Figures 2 and 3: Relative survival index is calculated as follows: 1) Determine the number of CWT recoveries at Ages 2 and 3 (hereafter,

“catch”) from each CWT lot from each statistical district from each month of collection (April – September from each recovery year); 2) Divide

month- and district-specific catch by month- and district-specific amount of sampling days and 1,000 targeted angler hours (from creel surverys);

3) Average the month- and district-specific quotients from step 2 to produce the average catch per sampling day per 1,000 angler hours; and 4)

divide the averages from step 3 by the number of fish stocked in each tag lot divided by 100,000 (i.e., catch per effort per 100,000 fish stocked).

Figure 2: Average relative survival index of Chinook salmon by year class and statistical district, based on recoveries in Lake Michigan.

Units on y-axis are the average month- and district-specific CPUE / 100,000 fish stocked. Only individuals recovered at Ages 2 and 3 were

included, thus only year classes 2011-2013 are presently available for evaluation. 2014 year class can be evaluated after 2016 data is finalized.

9

Figure 3: Average relative survival index of Chinook salmon by year class and statistical district, based on recoveries in Lake Huron.

Units on y-axis are the average month- and district-specific CPUE / 100,000 fish stocked. Only individuals recovered at Ages 2 and 3 were

included, thus only year classes 2011-2013 are presently available for evaluation. 2014 year class can be evaluated after 2016 data are finalized.

10

Table 4: Origin of Chinook salmon captured in Lake Michigan by recovery year. Percentages of catch in Lake Michigan waters are corrected

for angler and sampling effort and averaged across all recovery locations. Open-water catches of fish of all ages are included. Seasons include

April – August, when Chinook salmon are likely engaged in foraging behavior, and September, when Chinook salmon are likely staging for

autumn spawning runs. Numbers may not add to 100% due to rounding. These values represent the composition of each state’s Lake Michigan

fishery, but do not account for the number of fish stocked by each state and therefore should not be interpreted as patterns in survival.

Table 5: Origin of Chinook salmon captured in each state’s waters of Lake Michigan, 2014-2015 average, overall and by season.

Percentages of each state’s catch are corrected for angler and sampling effort and are averaged across 2014 and 2015. Open-water catches of fish

of all ages are included. Seasons include April – August, when Chinook salmon are likely engaged in foraging behavior, and September, when

Chinook salmon are likely staging for autumn spawning runs. Numbers may not add to 100% due to rounding. These values represent the

composition of each state’s Lake Michigan fishery, but do not account for the number of fish stocked by each state and therefore should not be

interpreted as patterns in survival. *There was no sampling in Illinois during September of 2014 or 2015.

Captured in Wisconsin Captured in Michigan Captured in Indiana Captured in Illinois

Origin Apr-

Aug Sept. All

Apr-

Aug Sept. All

Apr-

Aug Sept. All

Apr-

Aug Sept. All

Indiana 2 1 2 <1 <1 <1 4 2 3 3 * 3

Illinois 3 4 3 2 <1 2 4 5 4 3 * 3

Michigan 7 2 6 7 8 7 10 7 9 7 * 7

Wisconsin 20 60 28 12 3 11 12 18 14 22 * 22

Lake Huron

(MI)

8 6 8 9 2 9 2 4 3 4 * 4

Wild 60 26 53 70 86 71 68 64 67 61 * 61

2014 2015

Origin Feeding

(April – August)

Staging

(September) All Months

Feeding

(April – August)

Staging

(September) All Months

Indiana 2.2 0.4 1.9 0.7 2.3 0.9

Illinois 2.8 3.7 2.9 2.0 0.4 1.7

Michigan 8.6 9.1 8.6 5.1 2.7 4.7

Wisconsin 15.5 29.7 17.2 14.4 47.8 19.9

Lake Huron (MI) 8.6 3.2 8.0 10.3 5.6 9.5

Wild 62.4 53.9 61.4 67.5 41.0 63.2

11

Table 7: Percent of total catch of Lake Trout stocked at offshore and nearshore locations,

broken up by origin. Percentages are based on raw catch values (i.e., not corrected for number

of fish stocked) and represent the contribution of Lake Trout by source to angler creels (n =

sample size). This answers the question “Where were Lake Trout caught by anglers stocked?”

Recoveries were from 2012-2016, but primarily from 2015 and 2016. Percentages were

consistent between 2015 and 2016 when those years were analyzed separately. Of the offshore

stocking locations, fish stocked in the Southern Refuge had the most consistent contribution to

state anglers’ catch. Julian’s Reef contributed substantially to Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin

waters, but not to Michigan waters. Northern refuge fish contributed <10% to catch in all state

waters except Wisconsin.

Percent Offshore

Recovery Area Julian’s

Reef

Southern

Refuge

Northern

Refuge

Total %

Offshore

Percent

Nearshore n

Lake Michigan 16 37 9 62 38 3,221

Wisconsin Waters 18 46 24 87 13 441

Illinois Waters 53 41 2 96 4 1,683

Indiana Waters 29 41 01

70 30 981

Michigan Waters 5 33 10 48 52 116 1

0 % only due to rounding

Table 8: Return rates (catch per 100,000 fish stocked) of Lake Trout from the three

offshore stocking locations and from fish stocked nearshore in each state’s waters. Return

rates of nearshore stocked fish from outside state waters were much lower, consistent with multiple

studies that have shown lake trout generally do not move more than 120 km from their stocking location.

Evaluating return rates of in-state stocked nearshore fish only therefore gives a better sense of the return

on investment of nearshore-stocked fish. An offshore stocking location had the highest return rate in the

waters of each state: Julian’s reef in Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin waters and Southern Refuge in

Michigan waters. Lake Trout stocked nearshore in Michigan and Indiana had relatively high return rates,

while Lake Trout stocked nearshore in Wisconsin had the lowest return rates of each origin within

Wisconsin waters.

Spatial Area Julian’s

Reef

Southern

Refuge

Northern

Refuge

Nearshore (in-state

stocking only)

Lake Michigan 141.9 70.8 15.2 23.91

Wisconsin Waters 21.4 11.9 5.7 4.5

Illinois Waters 16.9 2.8 0.1 n/a

Indiana Waters 79.2 23.6 0.2 45.62

Michigan Waters 24.4 32.4 9.2 19.0 1 value from all of Lake Michigan (all states combined).

2Includes recoveries of tag lots stocked in IND, MM7 and MM8 due to multiple tag lots co-

stocked in those districts.

12

Table 9: Average and maximum length (inches) reported from Mass Marking Program biotechnicians of each species from each statistical

district (2012-2016). The largest overall fish of each species from each lake is in bold.

Chinook salmon Coho Salmon Lake Trout Steelhead Trout Brown Trout Atlantic Salmon

Average

length

Max.

length

Average

length

Max.

length

Average

length

Max.

length

Average

length

Max.

length

Average

length

Max.

length

Average

length

Max.

length

Lake Michigan

ILL 28.1 39.6 21.6 33.9 26.7 37.0 25.3 33.5 20.8 31.9

IND 27.5 39.7 21.0 32.5 27.1 44.0 24.8 35.5 21.5 34.3

MM1 29.7 37.0 23.2 34.7

MM2 27.4 39.1 22.4 22.4 23.3 30.1 23.4 29.6

MM3 29.2 38.8 19.7 26.3 23.6 31.0 28.8 31.6 16.1 17.5

MM4 32.2 40.3 24.0 25.3 24.2 31.2

MM5 29.3 40.3 22.4 29.9 26.0 35.4 22.6 31.5 22.6 38.4

MM6 29.7 43.0 24.1 32.5 25.4 38.0 25.7 35.1 22.3 27.4 19.6 19.6

MM7 28.1 40.0 22.4 28.4 26.6 39.0 25.2 33.0 20.5 30.4

MM8 28.5 40.5 21.1 32.4 27.4 37.8 24.0 36.3 24.6 28.0

WM1 27.4 38.2 25.3 25.3 22.9 22.9 20.3 29.2

WM3 29.4 39.8 23.2 34.3 24.1 31.7 25.8 35.2 22.0 28.9

WM4 28.7 42.0 23.7 34.4 25.4 40.2 25.7 37.1 22.4 33.7 19.5 22.1

WM5 28.8 42.5 24.2 34.2 26.6 38.6 26.3 37.5 23.3 36.7

WM6 30.1 40.6 23.6 33.0 27.0 38.6 26.5 35.6 24.0 39.0

Lake Huron

MH1 29.0 38.5 22.8 25.0 23.4 36.3 24.8 31.5 26.3 26.3 23.3 29.8

MH2 26.6 37.0 22.6 24.8 27.3 37.5 24.5 31.0 23.4 26.5 23.7 28.0

MH3 25.4 35.0 20.8 21.0 25.6 36.0 25.2 30.0 22.1 24.3

MH4 19.3 19.3

MH5 28.7 36.0 20.9 23.2 26.0 33.8 22.6 28.5 25.5 26.0 24.7 29.3

MH6 26.7 34.0 19.0 29.3 28.6 35.3 23.9 30.0 21.3 23.5 20.9 28.0

13

U.S. Department of the Interior U.S Fish and Wildlife Service http://www.fws.gov March 2017

“Working with partners to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants

and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people”