Comparison of survival of winter-run steelhead based on stocking location
1
2
3
Jory L. Jonas1, James L. Dexter Jr.2, Neil Ledet3, Richard O’Neal4, Martha
4
Wolgamood5, and Jan VanAmberg6
5
6
7
1
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Charlevoix Fisheries Research
Station, 96 Grant Street, Charlevoix, Michigan 49720, USA.
8
9
2
10
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Plainwell Operations Service
11
Center,
12
621 N. 10th Street, Plainwell, MI 49080, USA.
13
14
3
Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Fawn River State Fish Hatchery,
6889 N. State Road 327, Orland, IN 46776 USA.
15
16
4
17
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Muskegon State Game Area,
7550 E. Messenger Road, Twin Lake, MI 49457, USA.
18
19
20
5
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Wolf Lake State Fish Hatchery,
34270 County Road 652, Mattawan, MI 49071, USA.
21
22
23
24
6
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Thompson State Fish Hatchery,
9445 South State Highway M149, Manistique, MI 498545, USA.
25
1
26
Abstract.—
27
The influences of stocking location on the survival of stocked fish are poorly
28
understood in the Great Lakes and only a few poorly replicated studies have
29
been carried out. To evaluate the survival of stocked Michigan strain steelhead
30
we investigated the relative survival and recreational fishery contributions of
31
coded-wire tagged fish stocked at up-, mid- and down-stream sites in four river
32
systems. Three are tributary to Lake Michigan (St. Joseph River, Big Manistee
33
River, and Muskegon River), and one tributary to Lake Huron (Au Sable River).
34
Tags were recovered through creel surveys, use of dedicated head collectors
35
and volunteer angler returns. Steelhead stocked in the Muskegon River on a
36
whole returned better followed by those planted in the Au Sable and St. Joseph
37
Rivers, which were similar. The Manistee River consistently produced lower
38
returns of stocked fish relative to the other study rivers. Contrary to reports from
39
previous investigations, up-stream stocking locations led to greater apparent
40
survival to open-lake and river fisheries. The pattern was observed for all four of
41
the study rivers and in all survey methodologies providing strong evidence for the
42
strength of the effect. To maximize the investment in hatchery fish, fisheries
43
managers and hatchery biologists would do well to consider upstream locations
44
when planning stocking programs for anadromous steelhead in the Great Lakes.
45
2
46
47
Introduction.—
Anadromous rainbow trout or steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss provide
48
important recreational fishing opportunities in the Great Lakes and tributary
49
streams. According to recent national surveys of hunting and fishing behavior,
50
from 2001 to 2006 nearly five percent of all angling nationwide occurred in Great
51
Lakes waters, representing US$1.5 billion dollars in expenditures per year (U.S.
52
Department of Interior 2006). These surveys further indicate that approximately
53
13% of Great Lakes anglers targeted steelhead when fishing. Over one-third of
54
all angling in the Great Lakes occurred on Lake Michigan, where steelhead
55
represented 5-15% of the recreational catch annually from 1996 to 2006 (Breidert
56
et al. 2007).
57
Both natural reproduction and supplemental stocking of hatchery-raised fish
58
maintain Great Lakes steelhead fisheries (Keller et al. 1990). Given the relatively
59
strong reliance on hatcheries to maintain fisheries, there is a keen interest in
60
maximizing post-stocking survival of hatchery fish. In Michigan, steelhead are
61
typically stocked as spring yearlings into tributary rivers of the Great Lakes. The
62
influences of stocking location on the survival of stocked fish are poorly
63
understood in the Great Lakes. Only a few poorly replicated studies have been
64
undertaken and reported.
65
In marine systems much thought has been given to the selection of stocking
66
locations for steelhead to optimize their survivability, spatial distributions, and
67
spawning runs (Ward and Slaney 1990; Wagner 1969). However, these marine
68
studies do not translate directly to the Great Lakes due to the substantially
69
different environmental conditions.
70
We investigate the relative survival and recreational fishery contributions of
71
steelhead stocked at up-, mid- and down-stream sites in four river systems.
72
Three are tributary to Lake Michigan (St. Joseph River, Big Manistee River, and
73
Muskegon River), and one is tributary to Lake Huron (Au Sable River).
74
75
Methods.—
76
Study site.—Three tributaries to Lake Michigan and one tributary to Lake Huron
3
77
were selected for this investigation, based on previous stocking histories,
78
suitability for survival of rainbow trout, and spatial location. The St. Joseph River,
79
located in southeast Michigan, the Muskegon River approximately 113 km to the
80
north and the Manistee River an additional 97 km north all flow into eastern Lake
81
Michigan (Figure 1). The Au Sable River flows into the west central Lake Huron
82
Basin.
83
The St. Joseph River drains approximately 12,134 km2 of southwest Michigan
84
and northern Indiana. The average annual discharge rate at the mouth is 130
85
m3/s. The main stem is 338 km long and there are 2,641 km of tributaries. The
86
river is predominately a warm-water system with some cold and cool water
87
habitats in tributaries (Wesley and Duffy 1999).
88
The Muskegon River drains approximately 6,086 km2, with an average annual
89
discharge rate of 56 m3/s. The river is classified as a coolwater stream with
90
moderate to low gradient flows below Croton Dam (O’Neal 1997). The main
91
stem is 341 km long and there are 94 named tributaries.
92
The Manistee River drains an area of approximately 4,557 km 2; the average
93
annual discharge rate is 57 m3/s. The river is considered a high quality coldwater
94
system. The main stem is 373 km long and there are 109 named tributaries
95
covering 3,694 km (Rozich 1998).
96
The Au Sable River drains approximately 5,000 km2, with an average annual
97
discharge rate of 43 m3/s. The river below Foote Dam is classified as a low
98
gradient cool water stream (Zorn and Sendek 2001). The main stem is 208 km
99
long and there are approximately 52 named tributaries covering 766 km (Zorn
100
101
and Sendek 2001).
Impoundments influence runs of anadromous salmonids in all of the rivers
102
investigated. The St. Joseph River is the more heavily impounded system with
103
five fish ladders allowing upstream fish passage. A dam blocks upstream
104
movement 101 km upstream of the confluence near the Bodine State Fish
105
Hatchery (Twin Branch Dam) in Indiana (Figure 1). Tippy Dam (43 km upstream
106
of the confluence) blocks upstream movement of salmonids and other species on
107
the Manistee River, as do Croton Dam on the Muskegon and Foote Dam on the
4
108
Au Sable River (Figure 1).
109
110
Marking and stocking.—Gametes were obtained from weir collections of
111
naturalized adult runs of steelhead on the Little Manistee River during late March
112
and early April (Hay 2003). Fish were raised at the Thompson State Fish
113
Hatchery, Thompson, MI in 1996 and at Wolf Lake State Fish Hatchery,
114
Mattawan, MI from 1997 to 1999.
115
Prior to stocking, all study fish were marked as spring yearlings with a coded-
116
wire tag inserted in the snout (Wydoski and Emery 1983; Northwest Marine
117
Technology, Inc., Shaw Island, WA) and given an adipose fin clip. Uniquely
118
coded tags were used to identify each stocking site, and year-class (Table 1).
119
The actual number of marked fish counted as being released was adjusted for
120
tag loss, finclip quality and mortality experienced prior to stocking.
121
In each of four years (1996 to 1999), yearling smolts were stocked during late
122
April or early May. Stocking occurred prior to smolting, which typically takes
123
place in mid-May (Seelbach and Whelan 1988). Similar numbers were stocked
124
at multiple locations up- and down-stream in each of the river systems (Table 1;
125
Figure 1). During the first year (1996) fish were not stocked at the furthest
126
upstream site on the St. Joseph River due to logistical constraints (Table 1).
127
128
Tag recovery.—Tags were recovered through creel surveys, targeted collections
129
through use of dedicated head collectors and volunteer angler returns. In all,
130
nearly 7,500 tagged steelhead were recovered and the majority of these fish
131
(97%) were captured during five years from 1998 to 2002. Volunteer anglers
132
provided the greatest number of tag returns from Great Lakes and tributary
133
streams throughout the State of Michigan. Creel clerks collected more samples
134
from rivers, and dedicated head collectors more from Great Lakes open-water
135
fisheries (Table 2).
136
By collecting more detailed information, dedicated head collectors and creel
137
clerks provided data that enabled estimations of temporal and spatial scale
138
corrections for variations in collection efforts. Creel clerks collected marked fish,
5
139
but their primary responsibility was to obtain count and interview data used to
140
interpret overall recreational fishing effort and harvest. Tags were recovered
141
from Lake Michigan and Lake Huron fisheries in standardized lake-wide creel
142
surveys conducted from April through September each year from 1997 to 2004 in
143
State of Michigan waters (Lockwood 2000). Tags were recovered from the St.
144
Joseph River (1998 to 2004), Muskegon River (1999 to 2004), Manistee River
145
(1999 to 2004), and Au Sable River (1999 and 2000) fisheries through river
146
specific creel surveys conducted from March through December each year.
147
Targeted collection efforts (head-hunters) were not conducted for the Au Sable
148
River.
149
Dedicated collectors were seasonally employed personnel hired for the sole
150
purpose of collecting heads/snouts from fish with adipose fin clips which indicate
151
the likely presence of a coded wire tag in the snout. These individuals worked
152
the open-water fisheries of Lake Michigan from 1997 to 2006 and the St. Joseph
153
and Manistee River fisheries in 1998. These dedicated collectors recorded the
154
total number of fish evaluated, as well as the number with adipose fin clips for
155
each salmonid species per interview.
156
At the time of collection the total length, weight (if available), sex, location and
157
date were recorded and returned with the head/snout. Snouts were returned to
158
the MDNR Charlevoix Fisheries Research Station where tags were extracted,
159
read, and information entered into appropriate databases. Creel clerks collected
160
scale samples to facilitate age determination and definition of spawning history.
161
162
Analyses.—
163
Return rates.—The year-class and stocking site provided the base unit of
164
replication for comparisons within Great Lakes creel surveys, river specific creel
165
surveys, dedicated collections and volunteer angler returns. Returns of marked
166
fish were standardized (per 10,000 stocked) for each replicate to account for
167
variations actual numbers stocked. To compare return rates within a collection
168
methodology we used generalized linear model procedures. The dependent
169
variable was the standardized return rate and the independent factor was
6
170
stocking location within a river.
171
172
173
Results.—
Comparisons among rivers indicate that the Muskegon River on a whole
174
produced the best steelhead returns followed by the Au Sable and St. Joseph
175
rivers which were similar (Wald 21,5>25.0, P<0.001). The Manistee River
176
consistently produced lower returns of stocked fish relative to the other study
177
rivers (Figures 2, 3, and 4).
178
For the St. Joseph River, fish stocked at the furthest upstream site at
179
Mishawaka (97 km from the mouth) produced the highest return rates in all three
180
open-lake survey methodologies. Fish stocked at the Arden rearing pond
181
location (23 km upstream from the mouth) generally ranked second in return
182
rates and all other sites were lower and similar to each other (Figures 2, 3, 4). In
183
creel surveys, the apparent survival (returns) of fish stocked at the up-stream
184
Mishawaka site was nearly twice that of fish stocked at the mid- and down-
185
stream sites on the St. Joseph River (Wald 21,4=8.91, P=0.06; Figure 2).
186
Whereas, results from targeted surveys and volunteer angler returns indicated
187
steelhead survival greater than 3.5 times that of the other sites (targeted returns,
188
Wald 21,4=15.7, P=0.003; volunteer returns, Wald 21,4=18.3, P=0.001; Figures 3
189
and 4). Returns from fish stocked at Arden Pond were generally 20 to 50 percent
190
greater than that those from fish stocked at other mid- and down-stream
191
locations.
192
For the Muskegon River, the three open-lake survey methodologies showed
193
similar patterns for returns of fish from different stocking locations (creel surveys,
194
Wald 21,2=7.2, P=0.028; targeted returns, Wald 21,2=7.5, P=0.023; volunteer
195
returns, Wald 21,2=8.6, P=0.013). Fish stocked at the upstream site experienced
196
the best survival, followed by those stocked at the mid- and down-stream
197
locations. Apparent survival of fish stocked at the upstream site on the
198
Muskegon River was over 3.5 times that of fish stocked at the down-stream
199
location and 20 to 30 percent greater than for fish stocked at the mid-stream
200
location; Figures 2, 3, and 4).
7
201
For the Manistee River, fish from the mid-stream stocking location produced
202
relatively poor returns in all open-lake survey methodologies. In all surveys, fish
203
from the upstream site produced the best returns by nearly 2 to 3 times those of
204
fish from the mid-stream location (creel surveys, Wald 21,2=5.2, P=0.074;
205
targeted returns, Wald 21,2=4.1, P=0.131; volunteer returns, Wald 21,2=8.8,
206
P=0.012). Targeted collections and volunteer angler returns also indicated poor
207
survival of fish stocked at the down-stream location. However, creel surveys
208
results showed near equal returns between fish stocked at up- and down-stream
209
locations (Figures 2, 3, and 4).
210
For the Au Sable River returns for fish stocked at the up-stream location were
211
always higher than those stocked at the downstream site. All three open-lake
212
survey methodologies indicated apparent survival that was 30 to 50 percent
213
greater for fish stocked at upstream versus downstream locations (creel surveys,
214
Wald 21,1=0.8, P=0.370; targeted returns, Wald 21,1=5.2, P=0.022; volunteer
215
returns, Wald 21,1=2.6, P=0.104).
216
Based on river specific creel surveys and volunteer angler returns it was clear
217
that steelhead had a strong propensity to return to the river in which they were
218
stocked (Table 3). Few fish strayed among systems as greater than 90%
219
returned to the same river system into which they had been stocked. Returns to
220
rivers represented patterns similar to those observed in Great Lakes surveys.
221
On the Au Sable River fish stocked at upstream sites produced the higher returns
222
in river fisheries relative to fish stocked at downstream sites. Fish stocked at the
223
upstream location on the Muskegon River contributed most to river fisheries
224
followed by fish stocked at the mid- and down-stream locations and similar
225
patterns were observed on the Manistee River. For the St. Joseph River fishery,
226
fish stocked at Mishawaka, the furthest upstream stocking location, again
227
outperformed fish stocked at all other locations. However, the returns of fish
228
stocked in Arden Pond were not much different from those stocked at the other
229
mid- or down-stream locations. The Muskegon River fishery had the best overall
230
return rates, followed by the St. Joseph River and the Au Sable River fisheries.
231
As we had observed in open-lake survey methodologies, the Manistee River
8
232
again produced the lowest returns of stocked fish in river fisheries.
233
234
235
Discussion.—
Our results provide interesting insights into stocking strategies and survival of
236
stocked steelhead in tributaries of the Great Lakes. Contrary to reports from
237
previous marine investigations (Ward and Slaney 1990; Wagner 1969), up-
238
stream stocking locations in Great Lakes tributaries led to greater apparent
239
survival and contribution to open-lake and river fisheries. This pattern was
240
observed for all four of the study rivers and in all survey methodologies providing
241
strong evidence for the validity of the effect. It may be that predation pressures
242
on fish stocked in rivers are greater with increasing proximity to the Great Lakes.
243
It also may be that environmental conditions up-stream are somehow more
244
conducive to survival after stocking. One may also hypothesize that post-
245
stocking survival is somehow enhanced below impoundments, as the upstream
246
location on each of the rivers investigated is directly below an impoundment.
247
However, we would point out that there are four impoundments on the St. Joseph
248
River prior to reaching the furthest upstream location at Mishawaka. Three of our
249
study sites are located below the first impoundment and improved survival was
250
not evident at any of these locations.
251
There was a strong tendency for steelhead to return to the river in which they
252
were stocked and little straying was observed among river systems. Returns of
253
fish from the Arden Pond stocking location were somewhat higher than those of
254
fish from neighboring mid-stream stocking site locations. This may indicate some
255
improvement in survival for fish stocked at passive rearing facilities such as
256
holding ponds or net pens. Interestingly, the differences in returns of Arden
257
Pond-stocked fish to the river fishery were less pronounced for the open-lake
258
fishery. Often we assume that holding ponds or net pens improve imprinting as
259
well as survival thereby improving return rates to stocking locations. We also
260
note that observed improvements in survival were not substantial and that the
261
costs and benefits associated with rearing practices need to be considered
262
carefully before the practice is adopted wholesale.
9
263
It appears that fisheries managers and hatchery biologists would do well to
264
consider upstream locations when planning stocking programs. This is
265
particularly true for large cold to cool water rivers as investigated in our study.
266
267
Acknowledgments.—We would like to thank the many creel clerks, hatchery staff,
268
head-hunters and others with the Michigan and Indiana Department’s of Natural
269
Resources who have done an excellent job of raising and collecting steelhead for
270
this investigation. We also thank Tom Rozich (MDNR), Dr. Ed Rutherford of the
271
University of Michigan and Dr. Paul Seelbach of the University of Michigan and
272
MDNR, and Brian Briedert (INDNR) for their original ideas in initiating this project.
273
Randall Claramunt, John Clevenger, Eric Crissman, Pat O’neill and Patrick
274
Hanchin and other staff at the Charlevoix Fisheries Research Station who
275
provided invaluable input regarding the analysis and interpretation of results.
276
10
277
References.—
278
Hay, R. 2003. Little Manistee River weir steelhead egg-take report, 1967-92.
279
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Technical Report 96-1, Ann
280
Arbor.
281
282
Lockwood, R. N. 2000. Conducting roving and access site angler surveys.
283
Chapter 14 in J. C. Schneider, editor. Manual of fisheries survey methods
284
II: with periodic updates.
285
Fisheries Special Report 25, Ann Arbor.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources,
286
287
O’Neal, R. P. 1997. Muskegon River Watershed Assessment. Michigan
288
Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Special Report 19, Ann
289
Arbor, MI.
290
291
292
Rozich, T. J. 1998. Manistee River Assessment. Michigan Department of Natural
Resources, Fisheries Special Report 21, Ann Arbor, MI.
293
294
Seelbach, P. W., and G. E. Whelan. 1988. Identification and contribution of wild
295
and hatchery steelhead stocks in Lake Michigan tributaries. Michigan
296
Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Research Report 1950, Ann
297
Arbor.
298
299
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of
300
Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. 2006. National Survey of Fishing,
301
Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
302
Service. Available:
303
http://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/Subpages/NationalSurvey/2006_Survey.htm.
304
11
305
Wagner, H. H. 1969. Effect of stocking location of juvenile steelhead trout, Salmo
306
gairdneri, on adult catch. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
307
98:27-34.
308
309
Ward, B. R., and P. A. Slaney. 1990. Returns of pen-reared steelhead from
310
riverine, estuarine, and marine releases. Transactions of the American
311
Fisheries Society 119:492-499.
312
313
Wesley, J. K., and J. E. Duffy. 1999. St. Joseph River Assessment. Michigan
314
Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Special Report 24, Ann
315
Arbor.
316
317
Wydoski, R., and L. Emery. 1983. Tagging and marking. Pages 215-237 in L.
318
Nielsen and D. Johnson, editors. Fisheries Techniques. American
319
Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
320
321
Zorn, T. G., and S. P. Sendek 2001. Au Sable River Assessment. Michigan
322
Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Special Report 26, Ann
323
Arbor, MI.
324
12
Table 1.–Stocking locations, distance from the mouth (km) and numbers of
marked (coded-wire tag and adipose fin clip) steelhead stocked into study rivers
during 1996-1999. NS indicates sites not stocked.
Distance
River
Stocking Location
(km)
1996
1997
1998
1999
2
9,961
15,076
9,982
15,030
Sportsman’s Club-Arden
23
10,921
11,652
11,697
10,577
Shamrock Park-Berrien
35
9,847
14,923
10,173
10,049
Buchanan City Launch
50
9,801
14,780
10,107
9,987
Mishawaka-Lincoln Park
97
NS
19,819
20,317
20,054
Mouth
<1
14,795
15,102
16,727
15,080
High Bridge
35
15,787
14,787
15,044
15,444
Tippy Dam
43
15,950
15,005
15,110
15,010
Mouth
<1
10,163
10,056
10,180
10,095
Henning Park
34
21,489
19,965
20,218
20,022
Pine Street
44
22,072
20,198
20,180
20,058
Harbor
<1
28,426
21,095
22,134
25,050
Rea Road
11
27,172
24,812
25,027
25,426
St. Joseph
Pier 33
Manistee
Muskegon
Au Sable
Total
196,384 217,270 206,896 211,882
13
1
Table 2.–Numbers of study fish returned in recreational fisheries by collection methodology and year.
1997
Creel survey collections
Lake Michigan
Manistee River
Muskegon River
St. Joseph River
Lake Huron
Au Sable River
Targeted collections
Lake Michigan
Manistee River
Muskegon River
St. Joseph River
Lake Huron
Au Sable River
Volunteer angler returns
Lake Michigan
Manistee River
Muskegon River
St. Joseph River
Lake Huron
Au Sable River
Total
Capture year
2001
2002
1998
1999
2000
2003
2004
2005
2006
Total
20
------6
---
59
----273
15
---
87
115
191
284
15
44
42
134
131
256
15
93
55
58
57
210
21
---
20
42
43
89
4
---
2
7
18
18
4
---
--5
2
9
1
---
-------------
-------------
285
361
442
1,139
81
137
34
--5
--8
---
100
117
49
54
15
---
147
------21
---
102
------31
---
89
------33
---
49
------6
---
9
-----------
2
-----------
1
-----------
1
-----------
534
117
54
54
114
0
8
2
2
6
-----
151
107
184
66
40
31
235
428
347
373
40
109
130
249
166
352
32
31
122
199
187
215
32
27
58
75
81
40
7
9
12
3
12
1
4
1
2
1
----1
---
--1
---------
-------------
718
1,065
979
1,053
156
208
91
1,261
2,436
1,764
1,305
523
91
23
2
1
7,497
2
14
3
Table 3.–Study fish (adjusted per 10,000 stocked) returned to study river watersheds during river creel surveys on the Big
4
Manistee, Muskegon and St. Joseph Rivers (1999 to 2004) and from volunteer angler returns (1997 to 2004). “--“
5
indicates missing values for standard deviations which could not be estimated due to low sample size.
Collection Method/Return Location (watershed)
Creel
Stocking Location
Big Manistee
Muskegon
Volunteer
St. Joseph
Au Sable
Big Manistee
Muskegon
St. Joseph
Au Sable
Big Manistee River
Mouth
18.1±16.7
0.5±0.9
0.4±0.9
0
15.8±7.6
2.6±1.6
0
0
High Bridge
60.9±33.6
0.5±1.0
0.5±1.0
0
59.0±20.8
1.0±0.3
0.7±--
0
Tippy Dam
91.1±36.2
1.6±2.1
0.5±1.0
0
84.0±30.8
0.9±0.4
0
0
Mouth
0
29.0±19.3
0
0
2.1±1.9
19.4±13.3
0
0
Henning Park
34.5±38.6
176.6±143.8
3.3±6.7
0
29.7±27.7
183.5±80.2
2.0±0.0
0
Pine Street
0
351.8±208.1
0
0
31.9±17.4
184.0±109.7
1.7±0.9
2.0±--
Pier 33
0
0
137.7±60.2
0
0.9±0.1
2.0±--
34.7±7.7
0
Sportsman’s Club-Arden
0
1.2±2.3
115.4±18.7
0
1.3±--
2.0±0.8
38.5±11.8
0
Shamrock Park-Berrien
0
0
154.6±70.3
0
1.0±0.3
2.0±--
29.5±8.8
0
Buchanan City Launch
0
0.9±1.8
161.3±63.8
0
1.6±0.8
1.1±0.4
37.2±18.5
0
Mishawaka-Lincoln Park
0
4.3±3.8
531.9±262.6
0
4.0±2.8
3.0±1.6
193.8±157.0
0
Muskegon River
St. Joseph River
15
Au Sable River
Mouth
0
0
0
62.5±37.9
3.0±2.3
0
2.1±--
30.9±31.3
Rea Road
0
0
0
83.2±44.3
5.6±2.8
0
2.1±--
38.6±29.8
16
6
Figure captions.—
7
Figure 1. Map indicating key ports and locations of the Manistee, Muskegon and
8
St. Joseph rivers on Lake Michigan and the Au Sable River on Lake Huron.
9
Steelhead stocking locations are indicated by closed circles within expanded
10
detailed river sections.
11
12
Figure 2. Plot of steelhead returns to open-lake creel surveys per 10,000 fish
13
stocked for each river and site as indicated by distance upstream (kilometers).
14
15
Figure 3. Plot of open-lake steelhead returns from targeted collections per
16
10,000 fish stocked for each river and site as indicated by distance upstream
17
(kilometers).
18
19
Figure 4. Plot of open-lake volunteer angler steelhead returns per 10,000 fish
20
stocked for each river and site as indicated by distance upstream (kilometers).
21
17
22
Figure 1.
Manistee River
Tippy Dam
#
#
#
Au Sable River
Leland 
 Frankfort
St. Joseph River
#
Foote Dam
\
 Manistee
#
#
 Ludington
#
Muskegon River
#
Croton Dam
Berrien Springs Fish Ladder
 Grand Haven
#
Buchanan Fish Ladder
Niles Fish Ladder
\
#
 Holland
 South Haven
 St. Joseph
 New Buffalo
23
#
#
Legend:
Stocking location
Impoundment
South Bend Fish Ladder
#
Mishawaka Fish Ladder
18
24
Figure 2.
25
26
11.4
Number per 10,000 stocked
10
8
8.8
6
4
2
9.2
9.0
5.9
7.0
6.2
4.5
5.4
4.0
4.8
1.7
3.5
Dis 0
tan 97
ce
ups 50 44
trea 35
m ( 23
kilo 11
me
ters 2 1
)
AuSable River
Manistee Riv
er
Muskegon Riv
er
St. Joseph Riv
er
19
Figure 3.
120
116.7
Number per 10,000 stocked
100
103.4
80
89.9
60
62.9
40
48.3
20
27.1
40.7
22.6
31.0
15.3
39.3
Dis 0
tan 97
ce
ups 50 44
trea 35
m ( 23
kilo 11
me
ters 2 1
)
19.7
11.0
AuSable River
Manistee Riv
er
Muskegon Riv
er
St. Joseph Riv
er
20
Figure 4.
60
Number per 10,000 stocked
57.8
50
45.6
40
38.9
33.3
30
20
10
10.2 10.4
21.9
13.4
7.6
14.1
16.3
0
Dis
tan
11.3
ce 97 50
ups 44
trea 35
m ( 23
kilo 11
me
ters 2 1
)
7.0
AuSable River
Manistee Riv
er
Muskegon Riv
er
St. Joseph Riv
er
21