Lake Ontario Stocking Program Review November 2014

Transcription

1 Lake Ontario Stocking Program Review November 2014 Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Fish and Wildlife Services Branch Lake Ontario Management Unit 41 Hatchery LN, Picton, ON Lake Ontario Stocking Program Review

2 Executive Summary This document summarizes the Lake Ontario Stocking Program Review conducted by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (OMNRF) during The review included all stocking activities performed by the OMNRF in the Canadian waters of Lake Ontario, the St. Lawrence River upstream of Lake St. Francis, and the lower Niagara River. The goal of this review was to inform and educate stakeholders in fisheries management practices, challenges, and opportunities; ensure alignment with binational and provincial objectives; and meet Ontario s obligations under the Environmental Assessment Act. Management of Lake Ontario fisheries is coordinated across the international border by the Lake Ontario Committee (LOC) which is comprised of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. During 2013 the Fish Community Objectives for Lake Ontario were updated by the LOC. Fish stocking is one of the main management tools employed to achieve the Fish Community Objectives. The 2014 Stocking Program Review provided an important vehicle to gather advice from the public which will then be considered when determining policy. Information sessions were held in Port Credit, Oshawa, and Bellville in 2013 to provide information and receive input from the public. A summary of this input is found in this document as well as the recommendations from the Fisheries Management Zone 20 Council. Lake Ontario has a long history of fisheries management dating back to the beginning of European settlement. Since that time, several species have been introduced, both deliberately and incidentally, while others have been extirpated from the lake altogether. Several non-native species, including Rainbow Trout, Coho Salmon, and Chinook Salmon, have become naturalized to Lake Ontario and have become an important part of the fish community as well as important components of recreational fisheries. Stocking into Lake Ontario and its tributaries has proven vital to the restoration of extirpated species such as Lake Trout, Atlantic Salmon, and Deepwater Cisco. Stocking has also provided a mechanism to develop a balance between the abundance of predatory fish species and prey fish species.. Stocking has played an important role in restoring, establishing, and stabilizing species in Lake Ontario. As strategies become more refined, efforts can become more successful. Particularly, Lake Ontario fisheries management has developed a better understanding of the importance of location, strain, timing, and stock quality and how these can be used to yield a higher return in many stocking locations. Better technology is also helping to improve the effectiveness of stocking programs as seen in the success of the Chinook Salmon with the imprinting net pen. Lake Ontario Stocking Program Review

3 Table of Contents Executive Summary Introduction About This Document Acknowledgements Purpose, Scope, and Process Purpose Scope Plan Development Process Legal and Policy Framework for Fish Stocking Class EA for Resource Stewardship and Facility Development Projects Joint Strategic Plan for the Management of Great Lakes Fisheries and Fish Community Objectives for Lake Ontario Neashore Zone Fish Community Objectives related to stocking Offshore Pelagic Zone Fish Community Objectives related to stocking Deep Pelagic and Offshore Benthic Zone Fish Community Objectives Related To Stocking Fisheries Management Authority Ontario Provincial Fisheries Management Goals Lake Ontario Background Description of Lake Ontario The Lake Ontario Ecosystem Lake Ontario Ecology Shaped by Introduced Species Lake-wide Stocking Targets Lake Ontario s Trout and Salmon Fisheries by Sub-zone Recreational Boat Angling Effort by Sub-zone Angling Catch per Unit Effort (CUE) by Zone Current Stocking Program Summary by Sub-zone Rationale for Current Stocking Activities Chinook Salmon Coho Salmon Rainbow Trout Brown Trout Species Specific Management Programs Supported by Stocking Native Species Restoration Programs Lake Trout Lake Ontario Stocking Program Review

4 8.1.2 Atlantic Salmon Deepwater Cisco (Bloater) American Eel Lake Sturgeon Walleye Non-native Recreational Fisheries Programs Chinook Salmon Coho Salmon Rainbow Trout Brown Trout Ontario s Chinook Imprinting Pen Stocking Program Imprinting Net Pen use in Lake Ontario Net Pen Design Pen Locations Pen Program References Summary FMZ 20 Council Advice and Public Discussion Related to Stocking Overall FMZ 20 Advice Summary of Public Input Chinook Salmon Advice Stocking Location Priority Imprinting Net Pen Program Review Shoreline Sites Coho Salmon Advice Rainbow Trout Advice Avoid the St. Lawrence River Maintain Wild Populations Focus on Low Productivity Streams Imprinting Net Pens Improve Egg Source Brown Trout Advice Options to Consider Native Species Restoration Advice Additional Reading Appendix 1: Species Life Histories Lake Trout Life History (Seneca Lake Strain) Lake Ontario Stocking Program Review

5 12.2 Atlantic Salmon Life History (LeHave River Stock) Chinook Salmon Life History Coho Salmon Life History Rainbow Trout Life History Brown Trout Life History Stocking Data Used in Life Histories Figures Figure 1: Fisheries Management Zone Figure 2: Lake Ontario drainage basin Figure 3: Map of the seven stocking zones in Lake Ontario Figure 4: Average angling effort by boat origin and sub-zone (western Lake Ontario only) for Figure 5. Average catch per angler-hour by sub-zone for Figure 6. Angler Total Catch by Zone for Figure 7: Current stocking targets for put-grow-take salmonids in Figure 8: Four decades of Lake Trout stocking in Lake Ontario Figure 9: Four decades of Atlantic Salmon stocking in Lake Ontario Figure 10: Four decades of stocking Chinook Salmon in Lake Ontario Figure 11: Graph illustrating the four cohorts of clipped and tagged Chinook in Lake Ontario Figure 12: Four decades of Coho Salmon stocking in Lake Ontario Figure 13: Four decades of Rainbow Trout stocking in Lake Ontario Figure 14: Four decades of Brown Trout stocking in Lake Ontario Figure 15. Pen-reared fish released in New York waters of Lake Ontario (Chinook solid fill, Rainbow cross hatched) Figure 16: Imprinting net pen-reared Chinook Salmon released in Ontario waters of Lake Ontario Figure 17: Lake Ontario imprinting net pen locations (Canada and U.S.) Figure 18: A net pen out of the water.... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 19: A net pen in place with the lid open.... Error! Bookmark not defined. Lake Ontario Stocking Program Review

6 Tables Table 1 Summary of the stocking review and plan development process Table 2 Lake Ontario stocking targets... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 3. Current stocking targets by sub-zone Table 4. Percentage of current targets stocked by sub-zone Table 5. Lake Trout Management since Lake Ontario Stocking Program Review

7 1 Introduction 1.1 About This Document This document was developed as background material in support of public consultation on the proposed Lake Ontario Stocking Plan This document is intended for the general public. Where necessary, references are provided to additional detail found in technical reports. The Lake Ontario Stocking Program Review (REVIEW) was conducted with the assistance of the Fisheries Management Zone 20 Advisory Council (FMZ 20). The REVIEW provides important context to help inform the Proposed Stocking Plan, including Lake Ontario ecology, a brief summary of historical fisheries management and stocking practices, and current management principles and stocking guidelines. 1.2 Acknowledgements The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (OMNRF, previously OMNR) would like to acknowledge the contribution of the Fisheries Management Zone 20 Advisory Council (FMZ 20) for their dedication and generous donation of time. In addition, two members of the Zone 17 council also participated in the review. The FMZ 20 Council has spent many hours reviewing information, attending meetings, listening to issues, discussing options and providing advice. The FMZ 20 council has representation from the following interest groups: Academia Bay of Quinte Tourism Central Lake Ontario Sport Anglers Commercial Fish Association Credit River Anglers Association Environmental Interests Metro East Anglers Muskies Canada Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters Ontario Sportfishing Guides Association Port Credit Salmon and Trout Association/West End Anglers St. Catherine s Fish and Game Club/South Shore Anglers St. Lawrence River Guides Trout Unlimited Canada Unaffiliated Anglers 2 Purpose, Scope, and Process 2.1 Purpose The Lake Ontario Management Unit (LOMU) initiated a review of the Lake Ontario (Fisheries Management Zone 20) stocking program on November 16, The purpose of the review is to: 1. Inform and engage stakeholders in fisheries management including fish culture practices and associated challenges and opportunities related to stocking fish. 2. Ensure that stocking activities are aligned to binational and provincial management objectives. 3. Meet Ontario s obligations under the Environmental Assessment Act to review ongoing stocking of non-native species Lake Ontario Stocking Program Review Page 1

8 2.2 Scope Figure 1: Fisheries Management Zone 20. The review includes all fish stocking activities by OMNRF or partners into the Ontario waters of Fisheries Management Zone 20 (Figure 1) including migratory species intended for Lake Ontario that are stocked into Lake Ontario tributaries in FMZ 16 and FMZ 17. FMZ 20 includes the Canadian waters of Lake Ontario, the St. Lawrence River and the Lower Niagara River. This zone has includes Canada s largest urban area, with a population of over 10 million people. FMZ 20 includes the Bay of Quinte, the Niagara River below Niagara Falls, Hamilton Harbour and the St. Lawrence River. Cities along its borders include Toronto, Hamilton, Kingston and Brockville. Lake Ontario Stocking Program Review Page 2

9 2.3 Plan Development Process The review and plan development process began in June 2013 and continued to through to fall and winter of A summary of the plan development process schedule is presented in Table 1. PERIOD PRE-REVIEW PERIOD REVIEW Table 1 Summary of the stocking review and plan development process. Milestones June 2013: Updated Fish Community Objectives Oct 2013: Generate stocking review background material Nov 2013: FMZ 20 first meeting initiate review PLAN DEVELOPMENT Dec Jan 2014: FMZ 20 review and input (workbook) Feb 2014: FMZ 20 Second meeting to review all input and make recommendations March April 2014: Synthesis of all input into an emerging Draft Stocking Plan. April May 2014: Public Information sessions Draft Plan Developed FMZ 20 meeting to review draft plan Posting Draft Plan and Review for public comment Fall and Winter : Final Stocking Plan Approved 3 Legal and Policy Framework for Fish Stocking 4 Class EA for Resource Stewardship and Facility Development Projects Resource management in Ontario is governed by both legislation and policy. Ontario's Environmental Assessment Act requires an environmental assessment of any major public sector undertaking that has the potential for significant environmental effects. Prior to 2003, OMNR used a Class Environmental Assessment for Small Scale OMNR Projects (Small Scale Class EA) to meets its obligations under the EA Act (OMNR 1992). Under this Class EA, fish stocking was approached in three ways: 1. Stocking of exotic fish species, defined as species not present in Ontario waters, was not under the purview of the Small Scale Class EA and required different review and approval processes. 2. Stocking in new waters, defined as the introduction into a body of water or watercourse of a fish species already present in the Province of Ontario, but not present in the body of water or watercourse where introduction is to be carried out, was pre-defined as a Category B project and required full review under the Small Scale Class EA. 3. Supplemental stocking, defined as introduction into a body of water or watercourse of a fish species already present, or that was previously present in a waterbody or watercourse where the Lake Ontario Stocking Program Review Page 3

10 introduction is to be carried out, was pre-defined as a Category C project and could proceed without further review under the Small Scale Class EA. This Category C designation was used as the yearly approval process for all fish stocking in Ontario waters of the Great Lakes up until In 2003, OMNRF released the Class EA for Resource Stewardship and Facility Development Projects (RSFD) which replaced the Small Scale Class EA (OMNR 2003). As in the old Small Scale Class EA, fish stocking is explicitly addressed in the RSFD Class EA: Ongoing fish stocking, which includes fish stocking in inland lakes and native species in the Great Lakes, is pre-categorized as Category A and can proceed to implementation and does not require further screening under this Class EA. Unlike the old Small Scale Class EA, ongoing stocking of non-native fish species was not pre-categorized and therefore requires screening under the RSFD Class EA. Introductions of both native and non-native species require formal review under the RSFD Class EA. As in the old Class EA, stocking of new exotic fish species, defined as species not present in Ontario waters, is not under the purview of the RSFD Class EA and requires different review and approval processes than the RSFD Class EA provides (OMNR 2003). The identification of a project, development of a project description for the proposed project, and a screening process are integral in the RSFD Class EA process. One important consideration in administering the Class EA process for a proposed project is that the project must be consistent with existing OMNRF policies. This ensures that a Class EA screening is not conducted for a project that OMNRF would not approve. With the release of the RSFD Class EA in 2003, stocking programs for non-native species were identified and allowed to proceed under a Transition Provision provided with the RSFD Class EA. As a result of discussions regarding the implications of this new Class EA, it was decided that a Great Lakes fish stocking project, in the context of the RSFD Class EA, would be defined on a species-by-species basis for each lake. Additionally, Class EA reviews would be conducted concurrently with the fiveyear cycle for Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC) State of the Lake reports. This would allow the integration of current science and any new policy into decisions regarding fish stocking. The manner in which the RSFD Class EA deals with fish stocking on the Great Lakes is important, as Class EA reviews of non-native fish stocking have never been done before. In this case it is important to stress that a review of non-native fish stocking activities needs to be focussed on projects that follow OMNRF policy (as opposed to setting policy through approval of stocking activities). In other words, Class EA reviews of non-native fish stocking projects need to focus on stocking activities that are clearly identified in OMNRF planning and policy documents developed prior to the execution of Class EA reviews. To meet the needs of a Class EA review, these policy documents need to provide details such as numbers of each species to be stocked as well as egg collection and stocking sites. Documents with this level of detail do exist for Lake Ontario. The recently-updated Lake Ontario Fish Community Objectives 2013 (FCOs) provide explicit management objectives and lake wide stocking targets for both native and non-native species. Further detailed direction related to stocking is found in species-specific management plans (Lake Trout, Atlantic Salmon, American Eel) and local area Lake Ontario Stocking Program Review Page 4

11 plans (Hamilton Harbour, Bay of Quinte). The Lake Ontario Fish Community Objectives 2013 describe the overall fish community goals and objectives summarized in Appendix 1. The FCO2013 and other species and area-specific plans provide direction and detail sufficient for a RSFD Class EA project description. 4.1 Joint Strategic Plan for the Management of Great Lakes Fisheries and Fish Community Objectives for Lake Ontario The Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries (JSP) establishes a formal commitment by the Province of Ontario, the Great Lake States, two American Tribal organizations, and several U.S. and Canadian federal government agencies to a process that ensures that the actions of one fishery-management agency would not jeopardize the interests of a sister agency. The plan also includes a goal statement that provides a common direction for fishery management: To secure fish communities, based on foundations of stable self-sustaining stocks, supplemented by judicious plantings of hatchery-reared fish, and provide from these communities an optimum contribution of fish, fishing opportunities and associated benefits to meet needs identified by society for wholesome food, recreation, cultural heritage, employment and income, and a healthy aquatic ecosystem. One of the key commitments made in the JSP is the development of Fish Community Objectives for each lake. In the context of this stocking review, many of the objectives identified in the Lake Ontario FCO 2013 rely in part on stocking as a management tool Neashore Zone Fish Community Objectives related to stocking Nearshore areas are currently being stocked to restore degraded native fish communities such as Walleye in Hamilton and Toronto Harbours. Stocking Lake Sturgeon and American Eel populations may play a role in the Species At Risk Recovery Strategy. These factors are reflected in the Nearshore Objectives of the FCO 2013: 1.2. Restore Lake Sturgeon populations increase abundance of naturally produced Lake Sturgeon to levels that would support sustainable fisheries Restore American Eel abundance increase abundance (recruitment and escapement) of naturally produced American Eel to levels that would support sustainable fisheries Maintain and restore native fish communities maintain and restore native nearshore fish communities, including species that rely on nearshore habitat for part of their life cycle Offshore Pelagic Zone Fish Community Objectives related to stocking Chinook, Atlantic, and Coho Salmon as well as Rainbow and Brown Trout are the focus of offshore management. Stocking is particularly critical to restoring the extirpated Atlantic Salmon. These factors are also present in the FCO 2013: Lake Ontario Stocking Program Review Page 5

12 2.1 Maintain the Chinook Salmon fishery maintain Chinook Salmon as the top offshore pelagic predator supporting trophy recreational lake and tributary fisheries through stocking, accounting for natural reproduction. 2.2 Restore Atlantic Salmon populations and fisheries restore naturally produced populations to levels supporting sustainable recreational fisheries in the lake and selected tributaries and also provide recreational fisheries where appropriate through stocking. 2.4 Maintain Rainbow Trout (Steelhead) fisheries maintain fisheries through stocking and, where appropriate, enhance naturally produced populations supporting recreational lake and tributary fisheries for Rainbow Trout. 2.6 Maintain Brown Trout and Coho Salmon fisheries maintain the recreational lake and tributary fisheries for Brown Trout and Coho Salmon through stocking Deep Pelagic and Offshore Benthic Zone Fish Community Objectives Related To Stocking The FCO 2013 addresses Lake Trout and Deepwater Cisco populations in deep pelagic and offshore benthic zones. Stocking is critical to restoring these extirpated deepwater species. 3.1 Restore Lake Trout populations restore self-sustaining populations to function as the top deepwater predator that can support sustainable recreational fisheries. 3.2 Increase preyfish diversity maintain and restore a diverse preyfish community that includes deepwater ciscoes, Slimy Sculpin, and Deepwater Sculpin. 4.2 Fisheries Management Authority Responsibility for Lake Ontario fisheries management, including stocking, is shared by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (OMNRF) for the Province of Ontario and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) for the State of New York. As described in the Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries between the United States and Canada (Great Lakes Fishery Commission 1956), Lake Ontario includes the Niagara River below Niagara Falls, and Lake Ontario proper (including the Bay of Quinte), including the St. Lawrence River from Lake Ontario to the 45 th parallel of latitude. Lake Ontario fisheries at the lake-wide scale are managed through the Lake Ontario Committee, which is comprised of both OMNR and NYSDEC. The goal of the Lake Committee is to achieve the lake-wide Fish Community Objectives and help meet local fisheries management goals through interagency cooperation and evidence-based decision making. 4.3 Ontario Provincial Fisheries Management Goals The Province of Ontario is in the process of updating the Provincial Fisheries Strategy: Fish for the Future which identifies two main goals: 1. Healthy ecosystems that support self-sustaining native fish communities 2. Sustainable fisheries that provide benefits for Ontarians (subsistence, recreational and commercial) Lake Ontario Stocking Program Review Page 6

13 The Provincial goals provide important context for Lake Ontario Management Unit programs that strive to restore native fish communities while at the same time provide recreational fisheries based on naturalized and stocked non-native species. 5 Lake Ontario Background 5.1 Description of Lake Ontario Figure 2: Lake Ontario drainage basin. Lake Ontario (Figure 2) is the twelfth largest lake in the world but it is the smallest of the Great Lakes. It has a surface area of 18,960 km 2 (7,340 mi 2 ) and a drainage area of 64,030 km 2 (24,720 mi 2 ). Of the lake s surface area, 52% is within the Province of Ontario and the remainder is in New York State. Major urban industrial centers Hamilton, Toronto, and Rochester are located on Lake Ontario s shore. The New York shore is less urbanized and is not intensively farmed, except for a narrow coastal plain. Over 10 million people live in the basin, and nearly 67% reside in Ontario (Environment Canada and United States Environmental Protection Agency 2009). The Canadian population at the west end of Lake Ontario is the most rapidly expanding population in the Great Lakes basin. The population in this region has grown by over 40% in the last two decades and it is projected to grow by an additional 3.7 million people over the period (Ontario Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal 2006). In New York, population density is highest in the Rochester and Syracuse Oswego areas. Lake Ontario Stocking Program Review Page 7

14 5.2 The Lake Ontario Ecosystem The Lake Ontario ecosystem consists of the physical, chemical, and biological (including humans) components that interact with each other in the watershed, nearshore and offshore zones. The nearshore zone includes shallow waters (<15 m depth) along the exposed coastal zone and in the sheltered embayments. The offshore zone is the main body of the Lake. Lake Ontario receives 86% of its water from the upper Great Lakes and Lake Erie via the Niagara River and drains to the St. Lawrence River ( accessed September, 2011). Dams on the St. Lawrence River regulate water levels. Human activities in the watershed produce a mixture of organic and inorganic materials (nutrients, bacteria, natural and man-made chemicals, etc.) that are carried by wastewater treatment plants, combined sewer overflows and surface runoff through tributaries to Lake Ontario. The water and materials can initially accumulate near input sources but they are eventually mixed with the rest of the lake by waves and currents. The nearshore and offshore zones have unique characteristics important to understanding the Lake Ontario ecosystem. The nearshore zone is easily accessible for water-taking and recreational use. It is dynamic, being most influenced by changing water levels. Aquatic vegetation is often abundant in this zone because sunlight penetrates most or all of the way to the bottom. Many fish species use this zone for spawning and to support early life stages. However, water level regulation has reduced the interannual range of water levels, as well as altering the timing, magnitude and duration of seasonal levels. These alterations to natural water level cycles have reduced wetland plant community diversity (affecting fish habitat) and seasonal fish access to critical spawning habitats. Tributaries have their own resident fish communities, as well as providing many migratory Lake Ontario species seasonal spawning and rearing habitat. The offshore zone is the largest component of the Lake Ontario ecosystem. An important ecological feature of the offshore zone is its seasonal formation of layers of water of different temperatures (known as thermal stratification ). In the summertime, deep lakes will form three layers of water: Epilimnion: surface layer of water, warmest and well-lit. Mixed readily by wind and current. Metalimnion: transitional zone where temperatures drop quickly, water is colder (denser) than the epilimnion, and is highly resistant to wind mixing. Hypolimnion: located beneath the metalimnion, extending to the bottom, is usually dark and relatively undisturbed. The upper layer (epilimnion) receives the most light and nutrients and produces the free-floating algae or phytoplankton which support all other forms of life in Lake Ontario. The top two layers (epilimnion and metalimnion) together form the pelagic zone the area dominated by the open lake preyfish and predators (Alewife, Trout, and Salmon). The deepest layer of water (hypolimnion) includes a large offshore bottom area in which fish (Lake Trout, Lake Whitefish, Deepwater Sculpin) and other benthic (bottom-dwelling) animals (mussels, worms, clams, amphipods, and shrimp) reside. This deeper area, including the bottom is known as the benthic zone. Lake Ontario Stocking Program Review Page 8

15 5.3 Lake Ontario Ecology Shaped by Introduced Species Between the beginning of European settlement and the 1950s, several native Lake Ontario species became extirpated (locally extinct), including Lake Trout, Atlantic Salmon, and Deepwater Cisco. American Eel are listed as endangered under Ontario s Endangered Species Act, and Lake Sturgeon are currently listed as threatened under the Canadian Species At Risk Act (SARA) and Ontario s Endangered Species Act. Over 180 non-native species have been introduced either intentionally or by accident into the Great Lakes. Some of these introduced species such as Sea Lamprey, Dreissenid mussels, Alewife, Rainbow Smelt, Round Goby, Spiny Water Flea have altered the Lake Ontario ecosystem, perhaps permanently. Working under the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission (GLFC), the Province of Ontario, the State of New York, and Canadian and US federal partners initiated the restoration of native species in the face of significant ecosystem challenges. A key challenge was the hyper-abundant non-native preyfish such as Rainbow Smelt and Alewife which were thought to suppress native species recovery efforts. The abundance of non-native preyfish was due in part to the prior declines in abundance of top predators. Since the late-1960s, non-native top predators have been used to suppress alewife abundance to levels that can enable native species recovery. This strategy led to the introduction of Pacific Salmon (Coho Salmon and Chinook Salmon in the early 1970s). The strategy was successful in suppressing preyfish and it provided additional social and economic benefits from the non-native trout and salmon fisheries which now support a charter boat industry, local tourism and recreational fisheries. The management approach creates a dilemma first described in the 1999 Fish Community Objectives and updated in The successful eradication of non-native preyfish is unlikely; a more reasonable goal is to decrease Alewife numbers to levels that enable native species recovery. However, anglers want prey levels to remain at high enough levels to sustain the non-native recreational fishery that has developed over the past forty years. The Lake Committee acknowledges this dilemma and seeks to find the balance between native species restoration and maintaining the social and economic benefits from the non-native fisheries. Adding to the complexity of stocking decisions, a percentage of non-native Chinook and Coho Salmon have naturalized, and wild populations make a significant contribution to the fish community and fishery. For further information on Lake Ontario s changing ecology please refer to the following sources: Lake Ontario FCO 2013 ( LOMU Annual Report: NYSDEC Annual Report ( State of Lake Ontario Reports ( Lake Ontario Stocking Program Review Page 9

16 6 Lake-wide Stocking Targets. The overall stocking targets for Lake Ontario are set in a collaborative manner, facilitated by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, and are stated in Lake Ontario s Fish Community Objectives (FCOs). The FCOs recognize the importance and challenges of managing Alewife numbers: The dominance of Alewife in the Lake Ontario food web and its ability to both positively and negatively affect the Lake Ontario fish community means that fisheries management actions that may impact Alewife are unpredictable and have risks. (Stewart et al. 2013) The overall targets are designed to achieve the approved Fish Community Objectives The FCO identify lake wide stocking targets for both the Province of Ontario and New York State. The target numbers in Table 2 are total fish stocked (excluding eggs). For the put-grow-take (PGT) species in Ontario (Chinook, Coho, Rainbow, Brown), fish are generally stocked at a consistent size and age. For Atlantic Salmon restoration, fish are stocked at various sizes and ages as part of a comprehensive lifecycle strategy. Please refer to the LOMU Annual report for detailed records of life stages stocked ( Table 2Lake Ontario Stocking Targets Species Published Ontario Target Published New York Target Amended Target Ontario Amended New York Target Atlantic Salmon 645,000 50, ,000 50,000 Brown Trout 165, , , ,000 Chinook Salmon 540,000 1,761, ,000 1,761,600 Coho Salmon 80, ,000 80, ,000 Deepwater Cisco TBD TBD 250, ,000 Lake Trout 440, , , ,000 Rainbow Trout 140, , , ,200 Walleye 100, , , ,000 Total eggs) (excludes 2,010,000 3,760,800 2,525,000 4,255,800 Total (excluding eggs) Ontario = 5,770,800, New York = Lake Ontario Stocking Program Review Page 10

17 7 Lake Ontario s Trout and Salmon Fisheries by Sub-zone Figure 3: Map of the seven stocking zones in Lake Ontario. Fisheries and human population are not equally distributed, and hence, neither is effort. To ensure that our stocking efforts are meeting the needs of our stakeholders and the FCOs, it is important to understand the character of regional fisheries and fishing effort spatially. The spatial character of Lake Ontario s recreational fisheries has been traditionally assessed using seven zones (Figure 3). These zones take into account major tributaries, access (boat ramps and marinas), and major urban centers all factors which influence fisheries and fisheries management. For all of these reasons, it was logical to continue using the same zone delineations when initiating this stocking review. It should be noted that much of this section will focus on angler catch assessments in western Lake Ontario (zones 1-6). Zones 1-6 receive the majority of the fishing pressure and hence receive most of the stocking effort. Stocking is dominated by non-native salmon and trout and tends to be aimed mostly at maintaining put-grow-take fisheries to help maintain ecological balance with other nonnative species such as Alewife and to provide social and economic benefits from recreational fisheries. The outlet basin (zone 7) is unique in comparison. Fishing effort is relatively low representing only 2% of the total effort in Canadian waters. The salmonid species of management and angler interest here also differs with Lake Trout dominating the creel and the stocking effort. Stocking in this zone is directed toward Lake Trout restoration. Restoration science plays a key role in these stocking strategies, therefore, any changes must be examined through extensive scientific review and as such is out of the scope of this document. Lake Ontario Stocking Program Review Page 11

18 7.1 Recreational Boat Angling Effort by Sub-zone OMNRF monitors angling effort at ramps and marinas. Tributary and shoreline angling effort has not been assessed in recent years and as such are not discussed in this chapter. Future assessments of these fisheries are planned. 100,000 80,000 Angler-Hours 60,000 40,000 20,000 Ramps Marina Sub-zone Figure 4: Average angling effort by boat origin and sub-zone (western Lake Ontario only) for Angling effort in western Lake Ontario (Sub-zones 1 6) averaged 319,700 angler-hours for Boats that launched at ramps comprised 72% of this effort, while remainder came from marinabased boats (Figure 4). Almost all of this effort was directed towards catching salmon and trout. The greatest variation in effort for western Lake Ontario was due to concentrations in effort for marinabased boat anglers in West Toronto (Sub-zone 3) and Whitby Cobourg (Sub-zone 5). These subzones accounted for 91% of the marina-based effort. Effort for ramp-based boat anglers was more evenly distributed across sub-zones (Figure 4). Lake Ontario Stocking Program Review Page 12

19 7.2 Angling Catch per Unit Effort (CUE) by Zone The catch rate (catch per angler-hour) primarily reflects the abundance of fish and the preference of anglers towards each species. Angler preference varies less for each species from Niagara to Wellington than abundance, so the catch rate is a good indicator of where the fish are more abundant. However, angler preference may be more pronounced between species. For example, in western Lake Ontario (Sub-zones 1-6) Chinook Salmon and Rainbow Trout are most preferred (or targeted), followed by Coho Salmon and then Brown Trout. Targeting of Lake Trout is more variable and often occurs when fishing for other species is poor. Seasonal differences in catch rate are evident. For example, the catch rate of Chinook Salmon usually picks up in mid-april along the south shore, and then in late June along the north shore of Lake Ontario. These seasonal differences in catch rate tend to become more even through the year, and average catch rates from Niagara to Cobourg for Chinook Salmon and Rainbow Trout tend to be less variable (Figure 5) Catch per Angler-hour Lake Trout Brown Trout Rainbow Trout Chinook Salmon Coho Salmon Sub-zone Figure 5. Average catch per angler-hour by sub-zone for Coho salmon catch rates were highest from Whitby to Cobourg (Figure 6) based on catches of likely wild fish in late summer. In contrast, higher catches of Coho Salmon at the western end of Lake Ontario in spring are based on fish stocked by New York. Lake Trout catch rates are highest on the south shore (Sub-zones 1 2) due to higher stocking by both Ontario and New York and increased targeting of Lake Trout when Chinook Salmon and Rainbow Trout catch rates are lower. Lake Ontario Stocking Program Review Page 13

20 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 Lake Trout Brown Trout Rainbow Trout Chinook Salmon Coho Salmon 5, Figure 6. Angler Total Catch by Zone for Current Stocking Program Summary by Sub-zone Fish are not formally allocated by zone. The numbers of put-grow-take fish stocked in each zone have evolved over time. Table 3, Table 4, and Figure 7 show the current stocking distribution by zone shown as stocking targets (actual numbers stocked will vary). To establish baseline zone stocking allocations as a starting point for future planning, the following formula was used: Chinook Salmon zone allocations are based on a four-year zone average from 2010 to 2013 excluding the surplus stocking events. The overall target of 540,000 is used (published in the 2013 Fish Community Objectives). The target increased in 2013 to 600,000 which complicates the calculation of the base number. The Coho Salmon target is 80,000 as published in the 2013 Fish Community Objectives. Stocking is confined to Zone 3. Rainbow Trout zone allocations are based on the actual stocking levels in 2012 as a proportion of the overall target of 140,000 published in the 2013 Fish Community Objectives. Total stocking exceeded the overall target, so the zone allocations are adjusted downward. Brown Trout zone allocations are based on actual stocking levels stocked in 2012 as a proportion of the overall target of 165,000 published in the 2013 Fish Community Objectives. The total stocking exceeded the overall target, so the zone allocations are adjusted downward. Actual numbers of fish stocked in each zone varies depending on the overall production between Ontario and New York State. For example, in 2010 and 2012, surplus Chinook Salmon were stocked into the Niagara River and across several zones. In 2013, surplus Chinook Salmon were stocked into Zones 3, 4, 5, and 6. Surplus Rainbow and Brown Trout were either allocated evenly between zones or rotated from year to year. Lake Ontario Stocking Program Review Page 14

21 Table 3. Current stocking targets by sub-zone. SUB-ZONE CHINOOK COHO RAINBOW BROWN TOTAL 1 125, ,886 39, , , ,593 19, , ,451 80,000 60,073 15, , , ,475 50, , , ,666 81, , ,651 21,897 97, ,322 9,074 23,396 TOTAL TARGET 540,000 80, , , ,000 Table 4. Percentage of current targets stocked by sub-zone. SUB-ZONE CHINOOK COHO RAINBOW BROWN TOTAL % 0.0% 23.5% 23.7% 21.6% % 0.0% 6.1% 11.9% 13.5% % 100.0% 42.9% 9.7% 29.8% % 0.0% 8.9% 30.7% 13.3% % 0.0% 0.0% 5.3% 8.3% % 0.0% 8.3% 13.3% 10.5% 7 0.0% 0.0% 10.2% 5.5% 3.0% TOTAL TARGET Number stocked Brown Rainbow Coho Chinook Stocking Sub-zone Figure 7: Current stocking targets for put-grow-take salmonids in Lake Ontario Stocking Program Review Page 15

22 8.1 Rationale for Current Stocking Activities Chinook Salmon Initial stocking in the 1970s focused on the western end of Lake Ontario. Over the past 30 years, more stocking locations were added around the lake to enhance local nearshore fisheries. Currently, the Credit River location in Sub-zone 3 receives the greatest proportion (by site) of stocked Chinook Salmon to maintain a sufficient spawning run for spawn collection by Normandale FCS staff. The current high level of stocking in Sub-zones 1 3 reflects historical fishing effort and limited wild production. In contrast, lower stocking levels in Zones 4 6 reflect the contribution of wild fish from north shore tributaries Coho Salmon The Credit River (Sub-zone 3) receives all stocked Coho Salmon to maintain a sufficient spawning run for spawn collection. In the past, Coho Salmon were also stocked in Sub-zones 1 and 2 due to historical fishing effort and historically higher catch rates of Coho Salmon than other parts of Lake Ontario Rainbow Trout Ganaraska River strain Rainbow Trout are stocked primarily in locations to support the spawning-run Steelhead fisheries in streams that lack sufficient natural reproduction (e.g. Niagara, Credit, Bronte). The OMNRF policy for inland lakes of not stocking on top of strong, naturally-reproducing populations has been applied to Rainbow Trout in Lake Ontario tributaries (e.g. Sub-zone 5). Starting in the 1990s, Rainbow Trout were stocked directly into the upper St. Lawrence River off Kingston and in the eastern basin of Lake Ontario in Sub-zone 7 to compensate for reduced Brown Trout stocking. Recently, Ganaraska strain Rainbow Trout have been documented in East Coast tributaries, and the Province of Quebec is concerned about the impact of this non-native species on native Atlantic Salmon (Thibault et al. 2009). While the source of these fish has not been determined, steps should be considered to reduce the risk of further movement of Rainbow Trout down the St. Lawrence River Brown Trout In the early 1990s, Brown Trout were stocked primarily to support site-specific shore based fisheries (Sub-zones 1 4) that were the prime users of this species. Requests for Brown Trout by anglers in other parts of Lake Ontario resulted in re-allocation of these fish. Stocking was moved from Lakeport in Sub-zone 6 to Wellington and Sandbanks Provincial Park in 2006 which has produced a seasonal nearshore fishery. The Kingston Basin (Sub-zone 7) initially received a large proportion of stocked Brown Trout because it was believed that Brown Trout would remain in the area and support a fishery. Due to low returns to the boat and shore fisheries, Brown Trout stocking in Zone 7 was reduced in the early 1990s. Lake Ontario Stocking Program Review Page 16

23 9 Species Specific Management Programs Supported by Stocking 9.1 Native Species Restoration Programs The goal of native species restoration stocking is to re-establish a self-sustaining, persistent population of fish that are no longer dependent on stocking. Restoration is challenging and requires that all the critical life-cycle elements to be functioning. For migratory stream species such as Atlantic Salmon, adult fish must be able to reach suitable stream spawning habitat, spawn successfully, the offspring must be able to survive and grow in the stream for a number of years and then safely migrate to the lake. Young salmon in the lake need to be able to grow and develop into healthy adults to return, spawn, and create a new generation. Fisheries managers must be concerned with all life stages if restoration is to be successful. A restoration initiative is often designed to investigate restoration problems then learn and adapt as required. Due to the complexity of native species restoration, science plays a key role Lake Trout Lake Trout are a native top predator in Lake Ontario. Due to a number of factors, including impacts of Sea Lamprey, Lake Trout were extirpated from the lake by the 1950s. Since that time, OMNRF, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, New York State DEC, US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Geological Survey, and the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission have been working to restore Lake Trout to Lake Ontario. Lake Trout were historically abundant in all of the Great Lakes. Significant exploitation of Lake Trout began in the 1830s and the stocks were greatly diminished by the 1900s. After a resurgence in the 1920s the numbers dwindled again, and by the 1950s, the Lake Trout were extirpated in Lake Ontario due to a combination of unregulated fishing and sea lamprey predation. Table 5 presents a brief synopsis of Lake Trout management, bringing us to today s efforts. YEAR(S) 1830s 1900s: 1920s 1950s: Table 5. Lake Trout Management since DEVELOPMENTS Lake Trout decline significantly due to unregulated harvest and Sea Lamprey predation. After a resurgence in the early 1920s, Lake Trout abundance declines from 1930 until they are considered extirpated in the 1950s : Attempts are made to reintroduce Lake Trout, but are unsuccessful due to continued Sea Lamprey predation and high exploitation rates. 1970s 1983: Sea Lamprey control is initiated; stocking continues with limited success : A US/CAN joint plan is developed with a lake-wide stocking target of 2.5 million; Lake Superior and Lake Manitou strains are used in Ontario. 1993: The stocking target is reduced to 1 million in response to lower lake productivity; reductions are made in other salmonid stocking programs as well. mid-1990s: Stocking is dominated by Seneca strain. Lake Ontario Stocking Program Review Page 17

24 Figure 8: Four decades of Lake Trout stocking in Lake Ontario Current Management Direction Management strategies for Lake Trout were recently updated by Ontario and New York State Technical Committee, and are described in A Management Strategy for the Rehabilitation of Lake Trout in Lake Ontario, 2012 Update. The 2012 plan has a goal to re-establish a self-sustaining population of Lake Trout in Lake Ontario. The plan s two objectives are to increase abundance of stocked adult Lake Trout to a level allowing for significant natural reproduction and improve production of wild offspring and their recruitment to adult stock. In order to meet these objectives, the plan describes seven specific management strategies. These strategies will form the basis for future management actions: 1. Stock 800,000 spring yearling equivalents per year in US waters and 500,000 spring yearlings per year in Canadian waters. 2. Minimize stocking and juvenile mortality by optimizing: a. stage, size, and condition at stocking b. stocking methods c. stocking locations 3. Maintain high survival of older fish by controlling sea lamprey and fishing mortality. 4. Emphasize strains that exhibit the best combination of low post-stocking, juvenile and adult mortality. 5. Emphasize strains that are successfully producing a measureable level of wild recruits. 6. Protect naturally produced fish. Lake Ontario Stocking Program Review Page 18

25 7. Continue efforts to restore populations of native prey for Lake Trout, including Deepwater Cisco (Bloater) and Lake Herring. The most important changes in this strategy are: increased stocking in U.S. waters renewed emphasis on assessment of stocking methods reinstatement of coded wire tag use for Ontario stockings recognition of the need for suitable prey base, including restoration of native preyfish This document also identifies impediments to Lake Trout restoration; research needs; and roles and responsibilities of state, provincial, and federal agencies. Please refer to the Lake Ontario Annual Reports for further information on this program Atlantic Salmon Atlantic Salmon are a valued part of the natural and cultural heritage of the Lake Ontario basin. As a top predator, they had a key ecological role in maintaining a healthy fish community and were a good indicator of environmental health. The successful restoration of self-sustaining populations of Atlantic salmon, even to a few Lake Ontario streams, would highlight the improved health of the lake and its watersheds for both fish and people. This species is highly regarded by anglers the world over. They are renowned for their spectacular jumping abilities as they ascend streams to spawn. Atlantic Salmon are native to the Great Lakes basin. However, their original distribution was restricted to the tributaries and open waters of Lake Ontario. Atlantic Salmon entered Lake Ontario during post-glacial dispersal from the Atlantic glacial refugium. Their descendants continued to live in the lake, apparently without reproductive migrations. Prior to European settlement, Atlantic Salmon were extremely abundant in Lake Ontario. They provided a valuable source of food for native residents and early settlers. By 1846, Atlantic salmon stocks inhabiting Lake Ontario and the upper St. Lawrence River watershed were in decline. This decline was attributed to human activities including overexploitation and degradation of tributary streams (construction of dams and early farming /land use practices). In 1865, Samuel Wilmot began rearing Atlantic Salmon at his Newcastle facility. Many Lake Ontario tributaries were stocked including Black Creek, Bowmanville Creek, Cold Creek, Duffins Creek, Grafton Creek, Highland Creek, Lynde Creek, Salmon Creek, Wilmot Creek, White Creek, Credit River, Humber River, Moira River, Rouge River, and Trent River. By 1879, 4 million fry had been planted in Lake Ontario. Unfortunately, these early stocking efforts could not reverse the decline in salmon stocks, and by 1900, Atlantic Salmon were extinct in Lake Ontario Modern Era Stocking In 1987, a small restoration effort began in Lake Ontario tributaries (Credit River and Wilmot Creek) to see if adult runs could be established. Initially, the goal was to rely on wild egg sources until sufficient adult returns could generate a local source of eggs. This initial program used landlocked and anadromous strains of Atlantic salmon from a variety of sources Green Lake, ME (anadromous); LaHave River, NS (anadromous); and Clear Lake, NY (landlocked). However, the lack of Lake Ontario Stocking Program Review Page 19

26 a consistent supply of eggs from wild sources proved problematic and stocking targets could not be met resulting in poor adult returns. The program was revisited in 1995, and using the newly-developed LaHave strain broodstock, a research phase began. Research focused on: juvenile habitat suitability embryo incubation juvenile survival interspecific competition amongst juveniles spawning substrate suitability spawning behavior interactions with other spawning salmonids Results from these studies were encouraging and were used to help quantify the amount and distribution of suitable habitat for juvenile Atlantic Salmon in Lake Ontario streams. This information was used to help determine the best bet streams to be used in the next phase of the Atlantic Salmon restoration program. A significant partnership to advance the next phase of the restoration program was announced in the spring of This new phase of the program brings together the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters (OFAH), and many corporate and community partners. The new partnership seeks to advance the program through enhancements in fish production, community involvement, research and assessment, and habitat enhancement. Figure 9: Four decades of Atlantic Salmon stocking in Lake Ontario. Lake Ontario Stocking Program Review Page 20

27 Since the development of the Lake Ontario Atlantic Salmon Restoration team, production of hatchery-reared Atlantic Salmon has increased greatly, allowing for a more effective evaluation of the stocking strategy (stocking many life stages and strains). Continued assessment will help determine the most appropriate life stage and strain of Atlantic Salmon to stock for future success Current Management Direction The goal for Atlantic Salmon restoration is to bring naturally produced populations to levels supporting sustainable recreational fisheries in the lake and selected tributaries and also provide recreational fisheries where appropriate through stocking. The FCOs identify four key indicators to achieve this goal: Survival and growth of juvenile stocked fish, increasing adult spawning returns of stocked fish and wild production of Atlantic Salmon in the Credit River, Duffins Creek, Cobourg Brook, Humber River and the Salmon River. Establishment of self-sustaining wild Atlantic Salmon populations in selected Ontario rivers Credit River, Duffins Creek, Cobourg Brook, Humber River The level of wild production of Atlantic Salmon in the Salmon River system and increasing returns of wild, mature adults to Beaverdam Brook Angler-catch of wild and stocked Atlantic Salmon in Lake Ontario and Salmon River, New York For more detailed information on the overall program please refer to For information on stocking efforts and results from juvenile and adult assessment please refer to the Lake Ontario Annual reports available at In February 2014, the Atlantic Salmon Science Advisory Team held a workshop to review the status of restoration efforts and provide management advice. The Lake Ontario Atlantic Salmon Restoration Program Steering Committee will be reviewing the scientific advice and updating the program plan in Fall Considerations for Future Stocking Stocking plays a key role in the restoration of Atlantic Salmon. Critical elements of the stocking program include: Developing the fish culture capacity to raise enough fish to support the program. Developing a brood stock from several different strains to provide a reliable supply of healthy eggs. Produce and stock fish of various life stages including early spring fry to yearlings. Monitor stocking results and adjust stocking practices as needed. The overall stocking strategy for Ontario is to: Stock a variety of strains to find the best strain suited to the current Lake Ontario ecosystem. Stock a range of life stages from eggs to advanced yearling in a variety of streams and habitat to determine the optimal methods. Lake Ontario Stocking Program Review Page 21

28 Monitor stocking results to inform future actions Deepwater Cisco (Bloater) Historically, ciscoes constituted the greatest prey-fish biomass in Lake Ontario and were the major link between deep-benthic invertebrates and top predators. They also supported a substantial commercial fishery until the mid-20 th century when populations were decimated from degraded water quality, predation by Sea Lamprey, interactions with exotic planktivores such as Alewife and Rainbow Smelt, and sustained commercial fishing (Brown et al. 1987; Christie 1973; Smith 1972). All four species of deepwater cisco are extirpated from Lake Ontario. Of the four species, only the Bloater and Kiyi still exist in the other Great Lakes in sufficient numbers to be considered as a source for reintroduction (Eshenroder and Krueger 2002). The Blackfin Cisco has been extirpated from all of the Great Lakes, and the Shortnose Cisco is listed as rare in Lake Huron but is probably extinct (COSEWIC 2005). The Bloater may be the only species existing in sufficient numbers in Lakes Michigan, Huron, and Superior to support a reintroduction to Lake Ontario (Baldwin 1999). The reestablishment of deepwater ciscoes is intended to diversify the offshore preyfish community, increase native fish biodiversity, re-establish historical ecological structure and function, and increase ecological integrity and resilience. Reestablishment is consistent with the Lake Ontario Committee s binational Fish Community Objectives (Stewart et al. 2013), the Strategic Vision of the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission (Great Lakes Fisheries Commission 2011), Ontario s Biodiversity Strategy (Ontario Biodiversity Council 2011) and the Strategic Plan for Ontario Fisheries (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 1991), and the U.S. Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy (Great Lakes Regional Collaboration 2005) Current Management Direction OMNRF, New York State DEC, USFWS, GLFC, USGS and others are working to restore native preyfish species including Bloater and Lake Herring to diversify the forage base. OMNRF Fish Culture is developing culture techniques for Bloater including brood stock development. The long term goal is to restore a self-sustaining population of deep water cisco with 25 years. Key elements for this program include: 1. Establishing fish culture capacity and expertise to annually produce 500,000 Bloaters 2. Establishing a binational stocking program including effectiveness monitoring 3. Establishing a program to detect wild Bloaters 4. Improving our science understanding of Bloaters 5. Engaging stakeholders and communicating with the public Initial Ontario stocking of Bloaters occurred in 2013 with approximately 15,000 fish. The Stocking Plan will reflect the need to remain adaptive to new information about Bloater. Please refer to the Lake Ontario Annual reports for further information on this program loc/mgmt_unit/. Lake Ontario Stocking Program Review Page 22

29 Considerations for Future Stocking The Lake Ontario Technical Committee recommends a stocking target for Bloater of at least 500,000 juveniles or equivalents per year by To achieve this target, OMNRF will need to: Work with partner agencies to develop fish culture expertise, procedures and capacity Secure reliable sources of gametes from donor stocks in Lake Michigan and Lake Superior Investigate the potential to develop a broodstock Establish collection and culture protocols to manage the risk of potential disease and pathogen transfer to culture facilities and to Lake Ontario Build capacity in Ontario and New York to raise 500,000 Bloater to support a long term stocking program Determine the most effective and efficient life-stage for reintroduction Determine appropriate stocking locations, densities, timing and techniques Initiate experimental stocking in the Fall 2012 for New York and spring 2013 for Ontario Initiate regular stocking (full production) in American Eel American Eel are listed as Endangered under Ontario Endangered Species Act (ESA). OMNRF, DFO, and OPG developed the Lake Ontario OPG American Eel Action Plan related to Water Power Agreement for the R.S. Saunders generating facility on the St. Lawrence River near Cornwall. As part of the Action Plan, Ontario Power Generation stocked over 4 million American Eel into Lake Ontario and the Upper St. Lawrence River from Stocking objectives have been met and American eel are no longer being stocked Current Management Direction OMNRF, DFO and OPG continue to monitor the stocked American Eels. Please refer to the Lake Ontario Annual reports for further information on this program mgmt_unit/index.html. A SOR for American eel is also available at environment-and-energy/american-eel-0 which provides more information on this species The Role of Stocking A decision to stock in the future would be made within the context of the Species Recovery Policy and with the support of New York State and other partners Lake Sturgeon Currently, there is no stocking program for Lake Sturgeon in the Ontario waters of Lake Ontario. A decision to stock in the future would be made within the context of the Species Recovery Policy subject to an Environmental Assessment review and with the support of New York State and other partners. Lake Ontario Stocking Program Review Page 23

30 9.1.6 Walleye Walleye are managed for self-sustaining populations, and stocking is not typically done on top of naturally reproducing populations. In areas where the habitat has been degraded or the fish community has been altered, Walleye stocking may be an appropriate management tool. Lake Ontario has several areas where Walleye have been reduced or removed from the native nearshore fish community. Walleye was formerly abundant in Hamilton Harbour in the 1860s, but were likely extirpated from the Harbour by the mid-1900s due to municipal wastewater and toxic pollution from local industries. In 1987, Hamilton Harbour was officially designated as an Area of Concern by the International Joint Commission, and a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) was initiated in 1989 to address the problems of pollution and degraded ecosystem. Initial attempts to re-establish Walleye in Hamilton Harbour occurred in the 1990s through adult transfers and spring fingerling stocking. Initial results were encouraging however, the number of Walleye in the Harbour has remained very low. The Ministry and partners think the conditions are right for stocking with potential benefit to fish community and the people of the Hamilton Harbour area. The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry initiated a Hamilton Harbour Walleye stocking program in 2012 with an initial release of Walleye. In addition, Hamilton Harbour received 74 adult Walleye and Toronto Harbour received 77 adult Walleye in the fall Hamilton Harbour Walleye stocking is planned for the next five years when surplus Walleye are available. Stocking effectiveness is monitored by partners (DFO and RBG) and through the OMNRF Lake Ontario Unit Nearshore Fish Community Index program. Results from the Hamilton Harbour stocking are encouraging and additional stocking is planned to continue until 2020 when wastewater treatment plant upgrades are scheduled and water quality is expected to improve. Please refer to the Lake Ontario Annual reports for further information on this program loc/mgmt_unit/index.html Current Management Direction Lake Ontario Fish Community Objective 1.4 seeks to maintain and restore native nearshore fish communities including species that rely on nearshore habitat for part of their life cycle. Within Ontario waters, Hamilton Harbour and Toronto Harbour have been identified as areas requiring nearshore community restoration (including Walleye) due to historical disturbances. More specific local direction for nearshore fish community restoration can be found in the Hamilton Harbour and Watershed Fisheries Management Plan ( and the Toronto Remedial Action Plan ( Considerations for Future Stocking Walleye stocking is intended to re-establish self-sustaining local populations. Once local populations have been established, stocking would cease. Stocking Walleye on top of self-sustaining wild populations is unnecessary and should only be done after careful consideration of the risk to natural Lake Ontario Stocking Program Review Page 24

31 populations relative to the potential benefits. For Lake Ontario Walleye restoration stocking, the Bay of Quinte is used as a source stock. 9.2 Non-native Recreational Fisheries Programs Lake Ontario provides important recreational fisheries for several introduced non-native species including Chinook Salmon, Coho Salmon, Rainbow Trout, and Brown Trout. Lake Ontario is stocked with non-native species to help maintain the predator/prey balance and to provide social and economic benefits from the recreational fishery. Non-native species were traditionally stocked as put-grow-take (PGT) with the goal to create or support a fishery based on stocked fish. PGT fish were stocked with the expectation that they will grow and be caught by anglers, and will not reproduce. Recently, it has been shown that non-native trout and salmon have naturalized, and there can be significant contribution of these wild-produced fish to the fishery. The contribution of wild fish has led the Lake Ontario Management Unit to reconsider stocking strategies. The naturalization of non-native species and the location and level of wild production needs to be considered when deciding on stocking levels and location Chinook Salmon Chinook Salmon are a species of Pacific salmon native to the west coast of North America and were introduced into many of the Great Lakes to fill a vacant top predator role, and reduce the overabundance of introduced Alewife and Smelt, while at the same time providing quality recreational angling opportunities Stocking History Chinook Salmon were first stocked in Lake Ontario tributaries in Fertilized eggs from the McLeod River, California were obtained from the United States Commission of Fish and Fisheries and reared in facilities in both Ontario and New York. The first adult returns were recorded in 1876 and the first evidence of spawning documented in 1880, both from Wilmot Creek. The resulting spawning success and return to the fishery was limited and the program was ultimately discontinued in Failure was attributed to poor land-use practices and associated water quality and quantity issues. Chinook Salmon stocking resumed in Lake Ontario in 1916 and continued until the early 1930s. During this period eggs from Fraser River, British Columbia were planted in tributaries from Gananoque to the Credit River. During this attempt, adult returns were documented in several streams in 1919 and successfully spawning in the Credit River and Twelve Mile Creek by Concurrent attempts to stock New York streams proved fruitless due to poor stream habitat, so American agencies began planting fertilized eggs on offshore spawning shoals. By 1933, approximately 11 million Chinook Salmon had been stocked without establishing self-sustaining populations and the program was again discontinued. In 1958, Hubbs and Lagler reported that Chinook Salmon were rare or extinct in the Great Lakes. In the 1960s, non-native alewife and rainbow smelt had become abundant in the Great Lakes largely due to the lack of top predators, and were considered to be an aesthetic, economic and ecological nuisance. Following successful attempts of using Chinook Salmon to control course fish populations in New Hampshire, American and Canadian Great Lakes fisheries agencies sought to use Pacific salmon Lake Ontario Stocking Program Review Page 25

32 as a management tool to exert biological control of rainbow smelt and alewife while hopefully creating a valuable sport fishery. The state of Michigan was the first jurisdiction to stock Chinook Salmon in 1967 from eggs obtained from Washington State (Puget Sound Green River Strain). Following the massive stocking of Chinook Salmon by various U.S. agencies, Ontario initiated another stocking program in Lake Ontario in These stocking events primarily used eggs from runs established in Lake Michigan. Figure 10: Four decades of stocking Chinook Salmon in Lake Ontario. During the 1970s, stocking efforts focused on the western basin of Lake Ontario, specifically Bronte Creek and Port Dalhousie (Figure 10). This stocking strategy was used to establish a critical mass of returning adults in these streams to secure a consistent source of gametes for sustained fish production. However, sporadic initial stocking failed to establish stable returns of adults which necessitated a reliance on Lake Huron streams (originally colonized by Lake Michigan- stocked strays) to provide sufficient gametes for rearing. Chinook stocking in the Credit River commenced in the 1980s, and eventually the Credit River began to provide enough adult returns to secure eggs for future stocking. Also of note is the opening of the Ringwood Fish Culture Station in 1980 which became the primary hatchery for Pacific salmon culture in Ontario. The addition of this facility facilitated higher production of both Coho and Chinook Salmon through the 1980s. With a stable supply of gametes and enhanced production capacities from Ringwood, the Chinook stocking program increased through the 1980s. In 1987, New York and Ontario fisheries managers agreed to a stocking cap for Lake Ontario of 8.2 million fish (±5%). Ontario s maximum stocking effort for Chinook Salmon was 703,000 fish in Lake Ontario Stocking Program Review Page 26

33 Beginning in 1987, Chinook Salmon in Lake Michigan began to show the consequences of overstocking. Lake-wide Chinook Salmon harvest and catch-per-unit effort began to decline dramatically, and in , massive mortalities of Chinook Salmon were observed in the southern end of Lake Michigan. In Lake Ontario, the reversal of cultural eutrophication and invasion of the zebra mussel raised concerns about declining productivity of the forage base. In response to these concerns and the recent collapse in Lake Michigan, New York and Ontario agreed to substantially reduce salmonine stocking rates starting in 1993 primarily by reducing numbers of Chinook Salmon and Lake Trout. Lake-wide stocking was reduced from 8 million to 5 million salmonines in 1993 and further reduced to 4.5 million in The bulk of the Chinook Salmon stocking reductions were made by New York State. The Province of Ontario has reduced stocking numbers of Lake Trout, Chinook Salmon, and Brown Trout. Chinook numbers have dropped, but stocking locations have changed little in Ontario waters. Following public consultations during the fall of 1996 and winter of 1997, OMNRF increased Chinook Salmon stocking targets to roughly where they are today Natural Reproduction Wild juvenile Chinook Salmon have been encountered occasionally during Lake Ontario tributary surveys since the mid-1980s. However, in the late 1990s, surveys revealed that the extent of natural reproduction has become far greater and more widespread. Unstocked tributaries are seeing large numbers of returning adults (e.g. Ganaraska River) and even warm water tributaries such as the Napanee and Moira in the Bay of Quinte are producing wild fry. In some years, it is estimated that the amount of wild-produced Chinook equals the amount of fish stocked. Work is currently underway to better understand the degree of natural reproduction and gain insight into the distribution and movements of Chinook Salmon. Between 2008 and 2011, New York State and the Province of Ontario marked all stocked Chinook Salmon with an adipose clip and a subset with coded wire tags indicating stocking location Lake Ontario Chinook Mass Marking Program In 2008, the NYSDEC purchased an automated fish-marking trailer (Autofish) from Northwest Marine Technology Inc. The Autofish system is capable of adipose clipping and applying coded wire tags (CWTs) to salmon and trout automatically at a high rate of speed and accuracy. This allows agencies to quickly and accurately mark millions of salmon and trout with relatively little effort. Starting in 2008, all Chinook Salmon being stocked into Lake Ontario were fin-clipped (adipose), with a subset also tagged with coded wires. This program was conducted in a coordinated fashion between New York State and Ontario, using the Autofish system. The program was conducted for a total of four years ( ), equivalent to one lifespan of a Chinook Salmon in Lake Ontario (Figure 11). Lake Ontario Stocking Program Review Page 27

34 2008 Tagging Year Figure 11: Graph illustrating the four cohorts of clipped and tagged Chinook in Lake Ontario. The coordinated mass marking program resulted in millions of marked and tagged fish in Lake Ontario spanning four year classes which required extensive follow-up assessment and monitoring. Returns of Chinook Salmon fin clips and CWT were assessed through a combination of five OMNRF surveys: 1. Western Lake Ontario Boat Angling Survey 2. Chinook Salmon Angling Tournament and Derby Sampling 3. Lake Ontario Volunteer Angler Survey 4. Eastern Lake Ontario and Bay of Quinte Fish Community Index Gillnetting 5. Credit River Chinook Assessment Preliminary Chinook Mass Marking Results Time that Tags are in the Population Results from the ongoing Mass Marking Study are reported annually in the OMNRF Lake Ontario Management Unit Annual report and by the NYSDEC in the Annual Report. While the study and detailed analysis of the data will continue for the next few years, some preliminary findings are provided here: 1. From at the lake-wide scale, wild Chinook Salmon represent an average of 50% of the harvest from age 2 3 Chinook for all years. 2. The proportions of wild and stocked fish are different by region. 3. Stocked fish move widely about the lake until they start their spawning migration. 4. Fish generally return to their stocking location to spawn; the rate of straying from stocked sites is low. Further study is underway to assess such factors as the effectiveness of imprinting net pens vs shore stocking methods and to understand the wild/stocked population dynamics. Lake Ontario Stocking Program Review Page 28

35 Current Management Direction The current goals for Chinook Salmon are to maintain the Chinook Salmon fishery through stocking and accounting for natural reproduction. Preserving Chinook Salmon as the top offshore pelagic predator supports trophy, recreational, lake, and tributary fisheries. Maintaining the abundance of top predators (stocked and wild) in balance with available preyfish is important to this goal. Status and trend indicators for these goals include maintaining Chinook Salmon average growth and condition at or above levels observed in 2007 and maintaining or increasing catch rates of Chinook Salmon in the lake and tributary fisheries Considerations for Future Stocking Chinook Salmon have been stocked in Lake Ontario since the late 1960s, serving an important function in controlling Alewife numbers, as well as providing for an important sport fishery. New York State and the Province of Ontario collectively stock over 2 million Chinook every year. The importance of coordinating the agencies stocking programs while respecting the predator-prey balance in Lake Ontario is reflected in the 2013 Lake Ontario Fish Community Objectives (FCOs). Although Chinook are managed as a Put-Grow-Take (PGT) species, evidence of natural reproduction has been observed in many Lake Ontario tributaries. It is important for fisheries managers to understand the relative contribution of wild and hatchery-produced fish so that overall predator numbers can be estimated and the relative contribution of tributaries to wild production can be understood. Strong fall returns of spawning adults provide for important near-shore and shore fisheries, and understanding return numbers and straying percentage can help managers make more informed stocking decisions. Stocking levels for Chinook Salmon should consider total available prey to ensure predator/prey balance and total wild production as it relates to total available forage. A key lake-wide objective is to maintain large fish to support the recreational fishery. Other considerations include identification of local fisheries objectives such as the development and maintenance of nearshore, shoreline and tributary fisheries. Stocking location and the method of stocking including direct stocking from the shore line, the use of imprinting net pens and stocking into tributaries should align with policy, watershed fisheries management plans and local objectives Coho Salmon Coho Salmon are a species of Pacific salmon native to the west coast of North America. Coho were introduced into many of the Great Lakes to act as a top predator to reduce the overabundance of introduced Alewife and Smelt and to offer quality recreational angling opportunities Stocking History The first attempt to introduce Coho Salmon to the Great Lakes drainage basin occurred in the 1870s when government hatcheries released thousands of juveniles into Lake Erie and its tributaries. This stocking program did not establish spawning populations and was terminated. Another attempt in the 1930s also failed to establish populations in Lake Erie and was subsequently terminated. Lake Ontario Stocking Program Review Page 29

36 In 1966, a Coho Salmon stocking program was renewed in the Great Lakes by the State of Michigan which obtained eggs of Columbia River strain Coho from the Oregon Fish Commission. By 1969, Ontario had also begun a Coho Salmon stocking program. The objectives of the Coho Salmon stocking program were to provide recreational angling opportunities in urban areas and provide a means of assessing impacts of Lamprey predation. From , the Ontario imported fertilized eggs annually from a variety of sources. Michigan provided fertilized eggs (originally obtained from various Columbia River Basin hatcheries) until 1971 after which the states of Oregon and Washington provided Columbia, Skagit, and Green River stocks. In 1977 and 1978, fertilized eggs were obtained from British Columbia from the Capilano and Big Qualicum Rivers respectively. Juvenile Coho were stocked into several western Lake Ontario basin streams as spring yearlings. Stocking locations have changed little since the onset of the program with the focus being on western basin streams mainly the Credit River and Bronte Creek. In 1979, federal fish health regulations prohibited the importation of eggs which could not be certified as disease-free. This prompted the OMNRF to begin gamete collections from mature returning salmon to Ontario tributaries (primarily the Credit River). Unlike early problems that plagued the Chinook Salmon program, years of stocking had resulted in a stable source of Coho gametes from the Credit River. During the early years of the Pacific salmon stocking program, Coho Salmon dominated government stocking efforts and the Lake Ontario recreational fishery. However, once sufficient supplies of fertilized Chinook eggs could be collected from Lake Ontario streams and following the addition of the Ringwood FCS to Ontario s hatchery system, Coho Salmon became displaced by a growing Chinook Salmon stocking program. The Coho stocking program continued, and numbers of stocked fish peaked in the late 1980s. However, their relative contribution to Lake Ontario s boat fishery declined steadily as Chinook Salmon catches increased. Prior to the lake-wide stocking reductions of 1993, the Province of Ontario conducted an extensive review of its priorities within the fish culture system in 1991 and as a result announced closures of three fish culture stations two of which had been supplying fish to Lake Ontario. This meant a significant reduction in fish production capacities as Rainbow Trout and Brown Trout production shifted to Ringwood FCS. Limited space at Ringwood and poor returns of Coho Salmon to the fishery necessitated a halt of the Coho Salmon stocking program. Following public consultations in fall of 1996 and winter of 1997, a small program in Lake Ontario was re-instated. Gametes for this next stocking effort were provided from the Salmon River, New York; Kewaunee and Root Rivers, Wisconsin; and Blue Jay Creek, Ontario (Lake Huron). However, in the years that followed, Ringwood F.C.S. staff had difficulty finding enough Coho Salmon in the Credit River to satisfy yearly egg requirements and returns to the fishery continued to be poor. Provincial involvement in the stocking program was again terminated, and since that time the stocking of Coho Salmon has continued due to the efforts of angling club partners. Lake Ontario Stocking Program Review Page 30

37 History of the Fishery Coho Salmon historically had excellent returns until anglers switched to Chinook Salmon and Rainbow Trout in the 1980s and stocking of these species increased. Returns of Ontario-stocked Coho Salmon in were 0.65%, lower than Brown Trout or Rainbow Trout. The Coho Salmon program was discontinued after The program was reinstated in 1998, but discontinued again after 2005 as returns to the fishery of Ontario-stocked Coho Salmon in were poor (0.08%). During the late 1990s, wild Coho Salmon increased in abundance in Ontario streams east of Toronto, especially in Duffins, Bowmanville, Soper, Wilmot, and Ganaraska. The Bowmanville Anglers Association passed about 1,500 wild Coho above the Goodyear Dam on Bowmanville Creek during the fall of Boat anglers have noticed the increased abundance of wild Coho Salmon along the north shore during late summer and have begun to target these fish. Figure 12: Four decades of Coho Salmon stocking in Lake Ontario Current Management Direction The current goal is to maintain the recreational lake and tributary fisheries for Coho Salmon through stocking. The status and trends can be indicated by maintaining or increasing catch rates of Coho Salmon in the lake and tributary fisheries Considerations for Future Stocking Coho Salmon stocking is focused on the Credit River to maintain sufficient returns to provide a source of gemmates for fish culture. Several tributaries east of Toronto support wild naturalized runs of Coho Salmon and do not require supplemental stocking. OMNRF would consider increasing the Lake Ontario Stocking Program Review Page 31

38 number of Coho Salmon stocked within the limits of the overall stocking target established by the Lake Ontario Committee. Expanding Coho stocking to other tributaries must be compatible with policy, watershed fisheries management plans, and local objectives Rainbow Trout Rainbow Trout are members of the salmonine complex that is native to the eastern Pacific Ocean and freshwater tributaries from southern Alaska to southern California. Long prized for their value as a sport fish, Rainbow Trout have been intentionally introduced into a number of waters in Eastern Canada and the United States. Rainbow Trout have naturalized in Lake Ontario with many streams and rivers supporting self-sustain populations. Wild Rainbow Trout are abundant in most of the streams between Toronto and Brighton, and these streams are not currently stocked. Ontario-stocked Rainbow Trout accounted for 3% of the Rainbow Trout returns to the boat fishery from Returns to the boat fishery have declined to 1% since Stocking History Rainbow Trout or Steelhead, the migratory form of Rainbow Trout were first released in 1876 to Michigan tributaries of Lake Huron. Over the next decade, stocking expanded to include American tributaries of each of the remaining Great Lakes. There is evidence to suggest that the McCloud River (California) served as the initial donor population as it was also the donor for the first Chinook Salmon stocking events at roughly the same time. Following difficulties obtaining eggs from the McCloud River, other strains and sources were utilized including fish from the Klamath River (California), Nevada, Colorado, and Redwood Creek (California). In Canadian waters, most early stocking efforts were conducted by private individuals with the intension of release into the wild. Government rearing and stocking efforts soon followed with the importation of 75,000 Rainbow Trout eggs in 1911 from a hatchery in Bath, New York to the federal hatchery in Ottawa by the Canada Department of Marine and Fisheries. In 1914, Lake Superior Steelhead eggs (McCloud strain) were transferred to the provincial hatchery at Mount Pleasant. By 1917, most Rainbow Trout production had been shifted to the Normandale fish culture station with the intent of establishing Rainbow Trout populations in the Great Lakes. The Province of Ontario began its Rainbow Trout stocking program for Lake Ontario in 1922 with plantings in Bronte Creek and the Humber River. Initial plantings were small until the development of hatchery broodstock in Increased production led to an expansion of the stocking program to include many north shore tributaries. The first confirmed spawning of Rainbow Trout in a tributary to Lake Ontario was reported in Duffins Creek in 1947, and by the 1960s Rainbow Trout had become firmly established in all parts of the Great Lakes drainage basin. The success of establishing populations of Rainbow Trout was primarily attributed to the fact that Rainbow Trout exhibited a greater ability to reproduce in Great Lakes tributaries. Lake Ontario Stocking Program Review Page 32

39 Rainbow Trout continued to be stocked into Lake Ontario tributaries through this period. In the early 1970s, it seems as though the approach was to create populations in tributaries that likely did not possess naturalized runs (e.g. urbanized and highly altered streams such as the Humber River) and to support a recreational boat fishery in the western basin. However, stocking also took place in healthier watersheds to the east (Shelter Valley, Wilmot, Ganaraska, and Port Britain Creek) with the possible goal of supplementing existing populations in tributaries that likely also had naturalized runs. Stocking on top of these healthy populations stopped in the 1970s, and the goal became solely to provide a put-grow-take fishery in the western basin and supplement weaker runs in west basin tributaries (e.g. Credit River, Bronte Creek, and Humber River). Stocking levels of Rainbow Trout follow a similar trajectory as the other stocked salmonines, steadily increasing stocking through the 1980s. Ontario s Rainbow Trout stocking peaked in terms of numbers in Coincidentally, New York and Ontario fisheries managers agreed to a stocking cap for Lake Ontario of 8.2 million fish (±5%) in Following this agreement, Rainbow Trout stocking was reduced substantially and has remained relatively constant since Current Management Direction The goals for Rainbow Trout (Steelhead) are to maintain fisheries through stocking and enhance naturally produced populations supporting recreational lake and tributary fisheries where appropriate. Status and trend indicators for these goals include maintaining or increasing catch rates of Rainbow Trout in the lake and tributary fisheries and maintaining or increasing population, recruitment, and growth of adult Rainbow Trout in selected tributaries (Salmon River, New York; Ganaraska River, Ontario). Figure 13: Four decades of Rainbow Trout stocking in Lake Ontario. Lake Ontario Stocking Program Review Page 33

40 Considerations for Future Stocking Rainbow Trout have naturalized in Lake Ontario tributaries. The management objectives recognize the desire to support the offshore boat fishery, maintain and enhance naturalized populations and supplement tributaries by stocking in areas of low natural reproduction. In addition, Ontario needs to consider that the Ganaraska River strain (the strain that Ontario stocks) has migrated down the St. Lawrence River and established populations in east coast tributaries (Thibault et al., 2009). Management actions are proposed in the Draft Stocking Plan to reduce the risk of migration to Québec. Stakeholders have also proposed refreshing the Ganaraska broodstock and acquiring the Chambers Creek strain used by New York State DEC Brown Trout The Brown Trout is a close relative of the Atlantic salmon. This species is originally native to Asia and Europe. The first importation of Brown Trout to North American fish hatcheries occurred in when Brown Trout eggs originating from Europe were shipped to the United States. The first introduction of Brown Trout to the Great Lakes drainage basin occurred shortly afterward with the stocking of the Pere Marquette River by the State of Michigan in In the same year, an accidental release of Brown Trout into the Genesee River occurred at Caledonia New York. Records indicate that Brown Trout were introduced into Ontario in 1913 primarily in tributaries of Lake Erie, although it is suspected that private citizens may have planted the species into several waters at an earlier date. At this time, Ontario had no Brown Trout rearing facilities, and these fish were likely obtained from Pennsylvania and Michigan Stocking History The first stocking of Lake Ontario tributaries occurred in 1933 in the Humber and Ganaraska Rivers. By the 1950s, thousands of Brown Trout were being released yearly into Lake Ontario Tributaries. Despite the large numbers being stocked, surveys found that the degree of wild reproduction by Brown Trout was never extensive; most local populations were reliant on hatchery programs. It was also noted at the time that few Brown Trout moved into the Great Lakes proper, and most of these stayed relatively close to the home streams without extensive migrations. This suggests that the original donor strains did not have an obligate migratory life history as is found in sea trout populations. The provincial fish culture program for Brown Trout was discontinued in 1962 due to disease (furunculosis) concerns and the perceived failure of the stocking program to provide viable fisheries. At the request of anglers, a review of Brown Trout culture and stocking strategies was completed in A Brown Trout culture program was re-established in 1982 using trout from Bowmanville Creek and the Ganaraska and Sydenham Rivers. Currently, a broodstock (Ganaraska River strain) is maintained at the Tarentorus Fish Culture Station, and fish are reared at five other provincial facilities. Following the re-initiation of the Brown Trout stocking program, numbers of stocked fish increased steadily through the 1980s. Stocking during this time was distributed evenly around the western end of Lake Ontario with a relatively large annual stocking event occurring in the Eastern basin. The Lake Ontario Stocking Program Review Page 34

41 stocking efforts in the western basin created poor returns to the boat fishery and high quality shoreline fisheries whereas the efforts in the eastern outlet basin provided inconsistent returns to the fishery. In 1991, the Province of Ontario conducted an extensive review of its priorities within the fish culture system. As a result of this review, the province announced the closure of three fish culture stations, two of which had been supplying fish to Lake Ontario. This meant a significant reduction in fish production capacities as Rainbow Trout and Brown Trout production shifted to Ringwood FCS. Limited space at Ringwood necessitated a decline in the numbers of Brown Trout that could be produced for Lake Ontario. To help facilitate stocking reductions, it was rationalized that due to the poor returns to the fishery, the stocking efforts in the eastern basin should be greatly reduced and efforts in the western basin maintained to maximize returns to the shore-based fishery. Since the stocking reductions of the early 1990s, little has changed regarding both numbers of stocked Brown Trout and stocking locations History of the Fishery The Brown Trout fishery in Lake Ontario is managed as a put-grow-take fishery that is dependent on stocking since natural reproduction is believed to be low. Generally, Brown Trout are stocked directly into Lake Ontario in areas where local fisheries are desired as they are thought remain close to stocking locations with minimal straying. In the fall some stocked Brown Trout find their way into nearby streams to spawn where they contribute to the tributary fisheries. Many of these tributaries also support naturalized resident (non-migratory) populations of brown trout. The degree to which migratory and resident populations interact is unclear. These populations are managed as being distinct each with separate goals and issues. Management of the non-migratory brown trout fishery rests with land-based MNRF districts that border Lake Ontario (Aurora and Peterborough Districts) rather than with the Lake Unit. In the 1990s, 62% of the Ontario-stocked Brown Trout were harvested by shoreline anglers (not including stream anglers), 21% by the winter boat fishery at Pickering Nuclear Generating Station, and 16% by the spring-summer boat fishery. Returns to the boat fishery have declined to 2% since Returns of Ontario-stocked Brown Trout are currently very low (see Table from the 2012 annual report, last page). Returns declined by an order of magnitude in the spring-summer boat fishery from 1995 to Possible causes may be predation and/or poor habitat at stocking locations. Zero Ontario-clipped Brown Trout were observed during the boat angler survey in Returns subsequently increased again when gobies became available as prey for large salmon and trout. The Brown Trout shore fishery also declined after It is unclear if the densities were too low to attract anglers or stocking too spread out along the lake shore Current Management Direction The current goal for Brown Trout is to maintain the recreational lake and tributary fisheries through stocking. Status and trend indicators for this include maintaining or increasing catch rates of Brown Trout in the lake and tributary fisheries. Lake Ontario Stocking Program Review Page 35

42 Figure 14: Four decades of Brown Trout stocking in Lake Ontario Considerations for Future Stocking Brown Trout stocking has not resulted in a significant return to the fishery. Compared to results achieved in New York State where Brown Trout is the second most caught fish after Chinook Salmon, Brown Trout rank a distant fourth in popularity in Ontario waters. Some possible reasons for the low return rate to the fishery include: 1. Stocking too few fish at too many locations which may not create sufficient densities of fish to attract and retain anglers. 2. Poor survival of stocked fish due to size. Ontario fish are approximately 1/3 the size of NYS fish at time of stocking. 3. Poor habitat in stocked locations which may result in fish moving to other locations. 4. Angler methods to target other species. 5. Brown Trout returns to the tributary and shore fisheries have not been assessed. 6. Lack of awareness by anglers about the Brown Trout fisheries where to go, when and how to catch them. The Lake Ontario Stocking Plan will present a number of management options to consider in order to improve the Brown Trout Fishery. Lake Ontario Stocking Program Review Page 36

43 10 Ontario s Chinook Imprinting Pen Stocking Program Chinook Salmon have generally been stocked either from shore ( break-wall stocking ) or in rivers or river mouths. Since 2003, volunteers have been holding OMNRF-produced Chinook fingerlings in floating net pens in an effort to increase the chances of imprinting, subsequently increasing the returns of spawning adults in 3 4 years to the local fishery. In , OMNRF s Lake Ontario Management Unit and key stakeholders conducted a thorough review of the Lake Ontario stocking program, including stocking locations and methods. The net pen program is still very popular with the various angler groups, and there is interest in expanding the program Imprinting Net Pen use in Lake Ontario The first imprinting net pen projects in Lake Ontario were located in Oswego Harbour (Rainbow Trout) and Oak Orchard Creek (Chinook Salmon and Rainbow Trout), New York, in The Oswego site was initiated in response to angler and stakeholder concerns over predation of newly-released fish by Double-crested Cormorants, while the Oak Orchard site was established with the goal of increasing juvenile imprinting and subsequent returns of adult fish to the local fishery (Bishop and Pearsall 1999). In the first year net pens were used in Lake Ontario, approximately 65,000 fish were held for a short time; the annual average has been over 400,000 ever since (Figure 15). Figure 15. Pen-reared fish released in New York waters of Lake Ontario (Chinook solid fill, Rainbow cross Lake Ontario Stocking Program Review Page 37

44 In August 2002, a proposal was received by OMNRF from the Central Lake Ontario Sport Anglers (CLOSA), seeking approval for a pilot study to hold 10,000 Chinook Salmon in each of 2 eastern Lake Ontario locations for approximately 3 weeks prior to stocking. During this time, the fish would be fed and cared for by the club s members. Offshore stocking would then be done by the club to help minimize a perceived issue of predation by fish-eating birds. The main objective of the project was to determine whether a greater degree of imprinting could be achieved by holding the fish in situ which might in turn help provide a more reliable fall fishery (both near shore and shore fisheries) in this area. Since this was new to the Ontario waters of Lake Ontario, the field protocol already in use by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation was used to guide the early days of this project (Wilkinson 1999; Sanderson 2006). Imprinting net pens were first used in the Ontario waters of Lake Ontario in 2003 when pens were installed in Barcovan and Wellington. For five years ( ), these were the only two Ontario sites, releasing an average of just over 20,000 fish per year. In the years since ( ), Ontario sites have released an average of 93,000 Chinook per year with nearly 166,000 released in 2014 (Figure 16). Figure 16: Imprinting net pen-reared Chinook Salmon released in Ontario waters of Lake Ontario In 2008, Whitby Harbour became the next site with a net pen, followed by Port Darlington and Port Dalhousie in In 2010, Bluffer s Park, Oshawa Harbour and Port Credit sites were added. In 2011, Barcovan was discontinued in favour of Brighton. Since 2011, these 9 sites (13 pens total) have remained unchanged (Figure 17). Lake Ontario Stocking Program Review Page 38

45 10.2 Net Pen Design Figure 17: Lake Ontario imprinting net pen locations (Canada and U.S.) A net pen consists of a mesh bag suspended inside a rigid frame made of wood or metal. In Ontario, net pen design has been standardized in both dimensions and construction material. The mesh used is ¼-inch (6.35 mm) knotless nylon (UV treated) that stands up to the rigors of transportation and cleaning while preventing escape of the fingerlings. The mesh is attached to the frame using plastic cable ties. The frame is constructed from welded squares of lightweight aluminum tubing that is durable and resistant to corrosion. A pair of floats, sometimes called pontoons, are fixed close to the top along the long side of the pen. The floats are built of sealed PVC pipe and provide buoyancy to the pen, keeping the top of the pen above water (Figure 18). The pen is built with a hinged lid that locks to deter predation or vandalism (Figure 19). The dimensions of Ontario imprinting net pens are 8 x 4 x 5 ft (2.4 x 1.2 x 1.5 m) on the external frame while the volume of the mesh enclosure is 8 x 4 x 4 ft (2.4 x 1.2 x 1.2 m), totaling 128 ft 3 (3.62 m 3 ). To allow for freeboard, 1 ft (0.3 m) is subtracted from the height of the pen. This will be the standard size of an imprinting net pen in Ontario waters in the event that new pens are constructed. This makes it much easier to standardize stocking and feeding rates, and to plan fish deliveries from the hatchery. Lake Ontario Stocking Program Review Page 39

46 Figure 18 A pen out of water 10.3 Pen Locations Figure 19 A net pen in place with lid open The most important factor to consider at a potential or existing pen site is water flow. The fish in the pen will produce ammonia and other wastes while consuming dissolved oxygen. At the same time, the net pen mesh will reduce water velocity through the pen, making regular flushing even more important (Mazik and Parker 2001). In New York State, Wilkinson and Sanderson (2006) recommend that pens have at least 2 3 ft ( m) between the bottom of the pen and the substrate, a minimum of 3 ft (0.9 m) lateral clearance between the pen and seawalls, and to avoid placing pens adjacent to one another. Fish health is the top priority choosing an imprinting location; however, some other important factors influence the decision: Ease of access by the stocking truck Distance to a suitable release site Ease of access by volunteers who may visit the site many times per day Good footing adjacent to the net pen so volunteers can work effectively and safely Permission of the landowner (municipality, private land owner, etc.) Security of the location to minimize the chance of vandalism Solid anchor points so the net pen can be securely fastened The location of imprinting pens should also be consistent with local fisheries management objectives, including tributary fisheries management plans, and overall fish stocking targets. The Lake Ontario Management Unit s practice has been to keep net pen sites away from locations with naturally reproducing stream-run fish and to limit pen allocation to no more than 50% of that area s allocation. This has been done to minimize risk to stocking in the event that a catastrophic loss is experienced at a pen site. Lake Ontario Stocking Program Review Page 40