Informing Fisheries Monitoring and Barriers to Fish Movement

INFORMING FISHERIES MONITORING AND BARRIERS TO FISH MOVEMENT

WITH TRADITIONAL AND LOCAL ECOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE (TLEK)

MAJA REINHARTSEN

Thesis

submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for

the degree of Master of Science (Biology)

Acadia University

Fall Convocation 2019

This thesis by MAJA REINHARTSEN was defended successfully in an oral examination on 25 SEPTEMBER 2019.

The examining committee for the thesis was:

______

Dr. Diane Holmberg, Chair

______

Dr. Melina Kourantidou, External Reader

______

Dr. Anna Redden, Internal Reader

______

Dr. Trevor Avery, Supervisor

______

Dr. Rodger Evans, Department Head

This thesis is accepted in its present form by the Division of Research and Graduate

Studies as satisfying the thesis requirements for the degree of Master of Science (Biology).

I, MAJA REINHARTSEN, grant permission to the University Librarian at Acadia

University to archive, preserve, reproduce, loan or distribute copies of my thesis in microform, paper, or electronic formats on a non-profit basis. I undertake to submit my thesis, through my University, to Library and Archives Canada and to allow them to archive, preserve, reproduce, convert into any format, and to make available in print or online to the public for non-profit basis. I, however, retain the copyright in my thesis.

______Author

______Dr. Trevor Avery

______Date

iii

Table of Contents

List of Tables ...... vii

List of Figures ...... viii

Abstract ...... x

Acknowledgements ...... xi

Chapter 1 Ecological Knowledge Use in Science ...... 1

Introduction ...... 1

Evolution of TLEK Research...... 4

TLEK Research of the last decade: Objectives and Success in reaching goals ...... 7

Advantages of TLEK ...... 8

Human Dimensions ...... 9

Fisheries Ecological Knowledge (FEK) ...... 10

Attributes of Research Design and Tools for Integration ...... 11

Suggested areas of future study and data gaps...... 12

Study Objectives ...... 12

Chapter 2 Case Study: Fish Passage and The Avon River Causeway ...... 16

Introduction ...... 16

Comparing Scientific Monitoring with TLEK ...... 16

Objectives ...... 18

Materials and Methods ...... 20

Field Sampling ...... 20

Biological Data ...... 21

Environmental Monitoring...... 22

Catch Per Unit Effort ...... 22

TLEK Data Collection ...... 23

Results ...... 24

General Catch Trends ...... 24

Migratory Fish Movement ...... 24

Fyke Nets and Minnow Traps ...... 25

Gill Nets ...... 26

Eel Traps ...... 26

Discussion ...... 30

Chapter 3 Community Workshop and Survey Development ...... 53

Introduction ...... 53

Means of Participatory Engagement and TLEK Acquisition ...... 54

Objectives ...... 55

Materials and Methods ...... 56

Results ...... 57

Demographic, Waterway use and Perception ...... 57

Fish and Seasonal Movement ...... 58

Habitat Use and Quality ...... 58

Discussion ...... 60

Conclusions ...... 63

References ...... 69

Appendix I Fish Movement and Tidal Barrier Survey ...... 90

Fish Movement and Tidal Barrier Questionnaire ...... 90

Consent Form ...... 90

List of Tables

Table 1. Diagrammatic representation and summary of current methods to use

Traditional and Local Ecological Knowledge. CBM is Community-Based Monitoring. 15

Table 2. Summary of seasonal and migratory fish movement from studies before the

2017-2018 surveys (Adapted from Isaacman, 2005)...... 36

Table 3. Initial and Final Dates associated with use of various fishing gear...... 36

Table 4. Abundance, site and migratory status of all species caught in 2017–2018 sampling using gill nets (GN), fyke nets (FN), eel traps (ET), and minnow traps (MT). * indicates target species for TLEK indicator mapping...... 37

Table 5. Comparison of catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) of various fishes caught in gill nets on both sides of the Avon River causeway. CPUE represented as mean ± standard deviation...... 38

Table 6. Comparison of catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) of various fishes caught in eel traps on both sides of the Avon River causeway. CPUE represented as mean ± standard deviation...... 38

Table 7. TLEK cues/indicator categorization from observations on both sides of the

Avon River causeway...... 39

Table 8. Workshop participant information...... 64

Table 9. Categorical sections A (Demographics & Waterway Use), B (Environmental &

Economic Perceptions), C (Fish & Fish Movement) and D (Tidal Barriers & Habitat

Access) of survey input and changes made prior to public advertisement...... 65

vii

List of Figures

Figure 1. Avon River tide side and lakeside; The Avon River Causeway is located at

44°59'30.9"N 64°08'40.8"W...... 41

Figure 2. Avon River tide side (forefront) and lakeside (backdrop); leftside shows the saltmarsh (courtesy of van Proosdij et al., 2018)...... 41

Figure 3. Depiction of deployed gillnet similar to that used in the 2017–2018 field seasons (left) and a close up of a 3 inch diamond hung monofilament net similar to that used in the 2017–2018 field seasons (right)...... 42

Figure 4. A 5-hoop, aluminum framed fyke net with 2.25” mesh and overall length of

4m, similar to that used in the 2017–2018 field seasons to trap upstream fishes on Lake

Pisiquid...... 42

Figure 5. Minnow and eel traps showing dimensions (courtesy Jillian Arany, 2018). .... 43

Figure 6. Weekly project fishing effort (hours) for each site in the Avon River over the

2017-2018 seasons...... 44

Figure 7. Mean daily surface temperature, collected via Fishfinder boat-mounted temperature logger in 2017-2018, of Avon River on the lakeside and tideside of the causeway...... 45

Figure 8. Deployment periods for eel traps...... 46

Figure 9. CPUE overall for all species captured by gillnet tideside and lakeside in 2017-

2018...... 47

Figure 10. CPUE overall by season for all species captured by eel trap in 2017-2018. .. 48

Figure 11. CPUE by date for Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) captured by gillnet in

2017-2018...... 49

viii

Figure 12. CPUE by date for American Eel (Anguilla rostrata) captured by eel trap in

2017-2018...... 50

Figure 13. CPUE by date for Atlantic Tomcod (Microgadus tomcod) captured by eel trap in 2017-2018...... 51

Figure 14. CPUE by date for Striped Bass (Marone saxitilus) captured by gillnet in

2017-2018...... 52

Figure 15. Breakdown of survey respondents by primary waterway use...... 66

Figure 16. Breakdown of survey respondents by level of waterway use...... 66

Figure 17. Breakdown of the fishing months for survey respondents that use the waterway for recreation or commercial fishing...... 67

Figure 18. Perception of sufficient public access to information related to fish passage, waterway use and watercourse alteration by the survey respondents...... 67

Figure 19. Perception of survey respondents’ level of understanding of fish and seasonal movement of fish in the waterway...... 68

Figure 20. Survey response summary of associations for timing of migrating fish runs or changes in fish abundance of any fish species with separate coincidental seasonal occurrences...... 68

Abstract

A history of overexploitation in regional fisheries and vulnerability to effects of climate change form the basis for growing support of an anticipatory approach to management of marine resources within an ecosystem-based framework. To boost the effectiveness and adherence to marine policies, conserve resources for future use, and combat climate-related environmental changes, knowledge holders must be better engaged in current issues. The disconnect between community members with experience- based traditional and local ecological knowledge (TLEK) related to Minas Basin fisheries and watersheds, and the science-based knowledge used in policy making forms a barrier to effective resource management. This work aimed to collect, compile, and assess TLEK in conjunction with standard scientific data collection to help inform policy related to ecosystem management in fisheries. The directive supported creation and adoption of integrative and collaborative protocols for community-level resource oversight and knowledge sharing. Extrapolation and application of TLEK data to explore changes in fish distributions, demographics and fisheries data collection methods is of growing significance and of regulatory interest.

The significance of this project included a record of fisheries TLEK in a local waterway with significant fish migration activity and barriers to habitat access.

Development of relationships between TLEK and various environmental indicators was a critical component of the research. The outcomes included compilation of data to inform target and non-target fisheries conservation actions, increased stewardship for key species conservation, and dissemination of analyses to diverse stakeholders.

Acknowledgements

Thank you to my supervisor Trevor Avery for the incredible mentorship and support of this work. Thank you to Darren, Erica, and Hunter Porter for limitless contributions to this project and all the blood, sweat and tears! Thank you also to the many students of Team Kraken and the Easy lab that gave countless hours of help to the research, this wouldn’t have been possible without you all. Finally, thank you to the members of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal, Department of Fisheries and

Oceans, Nova Scotia Department of Agriculture, and the Mi’kmaw Conservation Group for your interest and engagement.

Chapter 1

Ecological Knowledge Use in Science

Introduction

The Convention on Biological Diversity (http://www.cbd.int/convention/), of which Canada is a party, recognizes and abides factors for ecosystem-based management that are congruent with the Canadian ecologically and biologically significant areas

(EBSA) definition (DFO, 2012). Among these factors are criteria-based, science-driven attributes of an ecosystem including uniqueness, aggregation, fitness consequences, resilience, and naturalness. Within the scientific community there is a longstanding acknowledgement that cooperative conservation efforts fundamentally benefit from

‘experience-based’ knowledge. The following study focuses on the usefulness of experienced fisher local ecological knowledge (LEK) in the Maritimes to support the assessment of the regions’ uniqueness, aggregation and fitness consequences.1

For the purpose of its species assessment process, the Committee on the Status of

Endangered Species in Canada (COSEWIC 2016) defines Community Knowledge related to the biological status of wildlife species as "Information derived from observation, personal experience and culture informing about a species (or a group of species) current and/or past population distribution and abundance), habitat use and

1 This study was accomplished by a survey and examination of literature in electronic databases including Google scholar and ISI Web of Knowledge. To maximize relevance and completeness, the review focuses mainly on the geographical limits of Atlantic Canada, temporal limits of the past decade, and content limits of conserved resource studies. The emphasis is on studies that have clear TLEK extraction methods, means of analysis and most important, application in some viable context.

availability, life history traits, ecological relationships and potential threats to the species survival". COSEWIC seeks information on the current or historical status of species, not opinions or comments on the consequences of possible conservation measures.

COSEWIC seeks information that a person or a group has directly obtained or has inherited and that is not otherwise available (for example in the scientific literature or in government reports). Verifiable documentation (such as fur returns2, catch statistics, or neatly compiled records of sightings) would be extremely useful. Historical information

(including that transmitted through generations) on changes in abundance, distribution, habitat and land use or behavior is most useful for species assessment (Rose et al., 2016).

There are varied terms and wide-ranging applications for ecological knowledge from non-science-based or academically trained sources. There has been and will always be cause for discussion as to the definition of such terms, however for the purpose of this research the terms will be handled in accordance within a framework categorical to our objectives. Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) will be considered the specific knowledge of First Nations people about the historical and current ecological occurrences persisting over time. Local Ecological Knowledge (LEK) will be considered the same in content, affiliated with local non-native expertise (aka fishers and others intimately associated with pertinent information). Fisheries Ecological Knowledge (FEK) and

Scientific Ecological Knowledge (SEK) will be considered that knowledge which is within established academic realm and standardized management practices. Often TEK and LEK are unified as TLEK; this can be co-categorized with FEK.

2 Fur returns are historical indices of annually recorded capture data reported by community members from which population estimates, movement and habitat information can be extracted.

The best fisheries management strategies are data-driven and efficient. The most effective practices are cooperative and widely adopted as well as current and comprehensive. I argue that TLEK offers a relatively untapped route to efficiency and cooperation and the expertise may be a faster way to identify and predict changes in trends from environmental variables because it is consistent and enduring knowledge highly specific to a site (Felt, 1994; O'Halloran, 2018). Additionally, the most imminent and useful TLEK is that which is highly-specialized and small-scale in its application.

The issue with TLEK research is the apparent difficulty in applying local ecological knowledge to a given biologic research initiative; the method of doing so, and measuring the success afterwards, is not established in the research community (Bennett et al.,

2018). Essentially, the ‘how’ of integrating local knowledge and experiential knowledge in the biological framework is yet to be worked out.

Given the historical lack of inclusion of knowledge outside of academic or government research and/or other institutionally based avenues, habitat and natural resource management has disenfranchised many First Nations and local resource users.

This is still the case despite calls from government and regulatory bodies for integration of such knowledge because there are no strong outcomes indicating a method for the collection, validation and application of such knowledge (Hind, 2014; Carlson et al.,

2017). For fair evaluation of the usefulness of TLEK, and more broadly for the eventual application and integration of such knowledge, research projects must be focused on small-scale analysis: temporally, geographically, and honed to the finest scale possible in terms of study subject. The further spatially and temporally from the current issue the more difficult the application and validation of TLEK becomes. Establishment of

protocols to minimize the spread of misunderstanding and exclusion of experienced resource users and knowledge holders from participation in management actions and discussions is needed.

Evolution of TLEK Research

A fundamental focus of studies on TLEK is the usefulness of such knowledge in policy and legitimate structure, i.e. those standard procedures in use already or those being implemented post pilot study in a scientific framework. The function and influence of TLEK in the enactment of the Oceans Act in Canada was important and detailed

(Power and Mercer, 2003). Several studies since reiterated the usefulness and current initiatives in Indigenous and community coastal resource planning (Noble et al., 2016;

Bennett et al., 2018). A handful of studies assessed how governance systems, constrained by their own policies, excluded TLEK from procedural research and oversight, for example using the example of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (Zurba, 2009) or nationally (Iseke et al., 2011; Duplisea, 2017; Heinrich, 2018). The vital role of TLEK in marine spatial planning is assessed in Indigenous case studies such as that of the Haida

First Nations’ cooperative management strategies with Canada’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans (Jones et al., 2010). Similar recent examinations of lobster fisheries

(Rochette et al., 2017) and overall TEK of coastal resources support the practicality of integrated knowledge (Fischer et al., 2015; Cullis-Suzuki, 2015; Brown, 2017)

The precedent-setting success of recent research in the realm of fisheries ecological knowledge research seeking to integrate TLEK with SEK is motivating. There is substantial literature supporting the theory that fishers’ knowledge, and TLEK in general, is crucial in preventing problems that may arise despite active and published

mainstream science (Hind, 2014). Specific examples include the decline of specific local fish populations despite conflicting scientific data suggesting a sustainable population

(Collins, 2018). Inherent issues relating to the conservation of at-risk species, notably fish, are highlighted in much recent research including that of Long et al. (2015) and

Dorey and Walker (2018): legislation comes after the enactment of recovery plans and is thus ‘too late’ and the management measures associated with such recovery actions does not account for all sources of information: fundamentally, the knowledge of local resource users (TLEK). Community based monitoring programs (CBMs) are a shining example of policy-based programs designed to integrate knowledge sources that are available let alone successful, but these examples are few and far between (Carlson et al.,

2017). While prevalent in certain scientific communities such as avian and terrestrial mammalian realms, there are few programs that focus on ichthyology. One exception is the GAP2 project based in Europe, where there are thirteen fishermen associations paired with scientific institutes that serve to dissect, improve and enact more informed and co- managed fisheries oversight (Kraan et al., 2013; Holm et al., 2017; Strange et al., 2017).

Nationally, programs such as the Canadian Fisheries Research Network have also enacted programs to facilitate the inter-disciplinary integration of knowledge sourced from academic and resource users alike (Stephenson and Lane, 1995a; Mackinson and Wilson,

2014)

Methodological studies in Canada and globally are longer lived yet only in the past decade has there been progress in solidifying successful methods of extracting TLEK

(Berkes et al., 2001a; Vayda, 2006; Watson and Huntington, 2008). This body of research deals primarily with the ethical and systemic problem of best practices regarding

the inquiry and inclusion of indigenous knowledge, but supports universal TLEK acquiring protocols provided the study involves multi-year ethnographic approaches for any measurable success in outcome. These are primarily the root-studies of TLEK going back to the early 20th century (Malinowski, 1922) and reiterated in the mid-20th century

(Nelson, 1969; Johannes, 1981). The most current research involving TLEK, however, is primarily focused on the comparative value of TLEK with traditional western scientific knowledge (SEK) (Kim, 2012).

Burgeoning, and yet to be robustly validated, TLEK in combination with data gathered by scientific methods is a promising evolution of TLEK research in terms of true cooperative management. In studies comparing FEK with relevant scientific data to assert a relative parallel, instances have been found of both similarity and discrepancy

(Silvano and Valbo-Jorgensen, 2008). Daw et al. (2011) compared self-reported fisher catch rates with official landings data and underwater visual census (UVC) in the

Seychelles, concluding that both sources of information gave disparate observations of changes in the biomass of species and catch during the study. Seasonal abundance patterns (Manajarréz-Martínez et al., 2010), and emergence of other relevant cues of movement of marine life have been explored in other regions of the world but are limited in Canada and certainly the Maritimes (Stortini, 2015). Many studies indicate the dichotomy that exists between TLEK and SEK. For example, Macdonald (2011) compared scientific and traditional Inuit knowledge in the Northern regions regarding their tactics to manage sea ice, highlighting the dichotomy between Indigenous priorities for use of sea ice (the resource) and traditional SEK which more broadly addresses the ecosystem effects of sea ice and climate change.

Studies in the past decade have suggested that TLEK can be useful in data- deficient areas, such as long-term lobster abundance indices in Canada, as compared to existing data from the Gulf of Maine (Boudreau et al., 2010). Pulsifer et al. (2011) on management of Arctic marine mammals, was an important conceptual turning point. The authors put forth a set of critical interconnected scopes: knowledge gathering, sharing, integration, interpretation, and application—needed for effective knowledge coproduction and application. Further, they supplemented these principles with a logistical solution on how a sea ice data management system may be better organized to allow for inclusion of TLEK in combination with SEK data.

TLEK Research of the last decade: Objectives and Success in reaching goals

Aquatic research involving TLEK in Canada as a whole, as well as specifically in the Maritimes, has historically focused on social histories, lore, and where data are most rich, and comparisons of commercial fishers catch rates with reports. While there is warranted use for these studies, the administrative and/or policy goals often include anecdotal accounting of a knowledge-holding group’s past to increase allegiance to and participation in existing policy (Cosham et al., 2016). There is often a very broad and open-ended focus geographically and temporally, which can make constituting the benefits of the knowledge to current regulatory or managerial actions difficult to discern.

Studies do not have enough limiting factors in their design (space and time) to isolate a dataset or a single overarching knowledge area that can be useful in solving a current issue (Rose et al., 2016). Though there are advances and growing calls for integrating

TLEK knowledge in management actions of aquatic resources, there remains a “lack of

aim, methodology and validation of TLEK results in disempowerment of the groups they aim to support” (Davis et al., 2010).

Advantages of TLEK

Despite a relatively strong history of studies involving Indigenous First Nations ecological knowledge in the sociology and history fields, TLEK has proven increasingly useful in combination with traditional scientific work in fields of conservation biology and environmental science (Holtgren and Auer, 2016). TLEK is a cost-effective tool in supplementing data-deficient areas of scientific knowledge. This includes long-term abundance data, identification of ecological and biologically significant regions, distribution of species, spread of invasive species and more (Gass et al., 2005; Beaudreau et al., 2010; Rochette et al., 2017; O’Halloran, 2018; Kost, 2018). The key overarching factors in the utility of such knowledge is three-fold: first is its cost-effectiveness; second, the long-term tracking of trends is available via public experience-based monitoring; and third, the tracing of changes is possible in monitoring programs like PublicLab and

CitSci.org (McCarthy et al., 2015). Long-term monitoring programs are achieved through platforms such as iNaturalist or Ocean Biogeographic Information System (OBIS) involving concerned citizens, indigenous populations, academia, government and more are crucial to the understanding of population changes. The need for maximal participation in all levels of tracking and oversight is increasingly necessary for appropriate and timely management of resources (Dickinson et al., 2012). This has been researched and confirmed in a multitude of studies particularly those involving structuring the process of working with communities (Pilz et al., 2006; Lynch et al.,

2004) and those on the design and implementation of long-term programs (Peters-Guarin

and McCall, 2011; Pratihast et al., 2012; Pratihast et al., 2014). Several studies in the past five years have indicated solutions to existing problems related to the induction and application of TLEK in traditional scientific studies (Hind, 2014; Carlson and Cohen,

2018). Precipitated by sociological studies about the interface and relation of TLEK with standard scientific knowledge showed there are statistical solutions to biases and errors of citizen science initiatives (Bundy et al., 2013; Davis et al., 2010; Bird et al. (2014). Kost et al. (2017) further identified the cost-effectiveness of such supplementary data collection and many others suggest the accuracy and accordance of such data with solely scientific data collection (Byhrne et al., 2016; Rochette et al., 2017)

Human Dimensions

The primary method of collecting and analyzing TLEK and supporting data is via interviews and surveys of local resource users. The disparate success is largely a result of lack of examination of research design, operational attributes and methodology.

Additionally, there is decreased relevance and acknowledged success in the realm of conservation when such studies do not correlate or support the findings with traditional scientific knowledge and data collection. Past studies indicate one of the most advantageous, though difficult to quantify, areas of TLEK research lies in its ability to increase ‘buy-in’, or effectiveness of a given policy or management initiative. For example, Charles et al. (2016) highlighted the imperative of fishing livelihoods in the effective creation of marine protected areas. The study concluded the attainment of sustainable fisheries requires successful management that is beholden to maximal and effective community participation in resource management decisions.

Asserting the relevance of the ‘human dimensions’ of conservation and management agendas is a pervasive theme in TLEK research. The fundamental and burgeoning obstacle among environmental scientists and biologists remains the balanced and informed integration of such knowledge with traditional ‘western’ science practices

(Jansen, 2013; Buyteart, 2014; Peterson, 2018; Brown, 2017). The leading successful methods of integrating and validating TLEK are mainly the conducting of semi- structured interviews with local ecological ‘experts’, whose expertise is experience-based and long-term, which are subsequently validated to their degree of comparison with traditional methods of collecting scientific data. Given the general support and overlap of data in such studies, the aim moving forward should thus be to institute protocols for which cooperative data collection is facilitated in a manner that a) validates all sources of data against one another; b) saves time and money by leveraging experience and local- based knowledge despite the academic or institutional merits provided the data is reasonably accurate and c) increases the effectiveness and success of conservation and resource management goals by actively including the direct resource users and public in the local community (Macintosh, 2013; Koopman, 2014; Kouril et al., 2015)

Fisheries Ecological Knowledge (FEK)

Hind (2015) provided a comprehensive review of fishers’ knowledge and its evolution, asserting five waves of FEK research going back to the early 20th century. A major theme across all waves was the general failure to integrate such knowledge with current fisheries science, affirming that the most recent wave is a turning point for FEK research where it will likely become obsolete or will finally make progress in systematic information assimilation. The first attempts to document FEK were primarily social-

science and focused on historical information. Later research, propelled by increasing threats to aquatic sustainability and coastal resilience, was successful in validating FEK via comparison to available scientific data (Koopman, 2014; Peterson and Kainge, 2014;

Dorey and Walker, 2018). Identification of key useful attributes of FEK data in terms of research design and project methodology has led to greater means of incorporating such information with current management goals; however, the repeatable method of integration of FEK and SEK to enact effective conservation management programs remains a future focus.

Attributes of Research Design and Tools for Integration

Attempting to bridge research gaps as described thus far requires both qualitative and quantitative approaches (Table 1). While semi-structured interview and/or surveys of knowledge holders are the primary means of collecting TLEK or FEK information, there are several important ways to do so successfully. Competency scoring by various methods is crucial, the expertise and value of the information must be indexed; Grounded theory and Cultural Consensus Analysis are increasingly common and useful tools

(Weller 2007; Isaac et al., 2014). Comparison of TLEK or FEK data to SEK can be achieved via literature reviews or in the comparison of TLEK or FEK to fisheries data often through catch-reports, surveys or monitoring and/or historical data (e.g. government data).

New and creative ways of quantifying local knowledge are also spurring future research. Statistical models and bootstrapping techniques are now being used to assess the variance of TLEK data. For example, Beaudreau and Levin (2014) utilized a new bootstrapping method to assess variance in abundance of marine mammals in a data-

deficient area off Puget Sound. They found that comparing the fisher’s perceptions of local prey, fish abundance was strongly aligned with scientific understanding for 20 of 22 target species, and new information about the other two species was verifiable by research. Decades of research have indicated TLEK and FEK are most useful to SEK and managers of such resources when a) there are data-poor areas b) you are attempting to document long-term changes, and c) it is spatially confined to suit ‘local’ expertise

(Pocock et al., 2014).

Suggested areas of future study and data gaps

There are both broad logistical gaps that remain lacking in terms of the application, integration and maintenance of local knowledge in interdisciplinary projects, and specific data gaps that lend themselves to future study. With the majority of studies attempting to marry these forms of knowledge having been focused on plant and bird species, the need for more fishery-specific research is great. Projects in temperate geographies, and those focused on fish species spawning dynamics (DeCelles et al.,

2017), ecosystem modeling (Duplisea et al., 2017; Bevilacqua et al., 2017), abundance estimates, habitat selectivity and distribution (Paterson and Kainge, 2014) are all key areas of focus for future study. Such research could fill in data gaps required to accurately assess climate-change related changes in the geographic range of species, the spread and interaction of invasive species with new ecosystems, and changes in political ecology.

Study Objectives

There are several major areas of interest with regard to the use of local and traditional knowledge; specifically, FEK importance and relevance to the successful mitigation of climate-related effects on aquatic ecosystems. Critical aspects of the

collection and synthesis of such knowledge is relating or mapping it to fisheries data and subsequent integration of it in standard operating procedures in policies and management practices. The type and depth of content for this sort of knowledge is crucial for rapid response rates and consistent information sources that are highly adaptable and verifiable against standard scientific data. Collecting FEK in conjunction with collecting scientific data is a simple test of FEK effectiveness. For more broadly applied FEK, knowledge- holder surveys have proven effective. Of importance, the framework for creating and disseminating community surveys lacks local knowledge holders’ input at the earliest possible stage of a project to ensure the correct questions are being asked, questions are understood, and answers will reflect what is intended. The ensuing case study outlines the usefulness of FEK, more broadly TLEK information, alongside the validation of its application in real contexts. Given the versatile definitions of ‘cues’ and ‘TLEK’, for the sake of this study the terminology applies to two particular aspects of the projects scope.

Cues, or indicators, are defined as particular information or events related to the timing of seasonal fish migrations during the time of the study (intergenerational or non current information excluded). TLEK is defined as local, experience-based knowledge.

Objective 1: To compare TLEK with existing standard science-based monitoring. In this

case, TLEK takes the form of FEK, but the consideration herein is broad so

the term TLEK is adopted.

Objective 2: To solicit and categorize via community workshops an inclusive way of

obtaining local knowledge and expertise through surveys prior to public

dissemination.

In union, the goals were to compile and visualize the indicators of local fish movement through waterways, and create a template for more effective community engagement and information sharing.

Table 1. Diagrammatic representation and summary of current methods to use

Traditional and Local Ecological Knowledge. CBM is Community-Based Monitoring.

Solicit Community petitioning Incentives and marketing Continuous involvement Logic modeling to set clear goals

Integrate and Apply Collect CBM programs suitable for long- Interviews term, large-scale inter- Surveys disciplinary projects Grounded Theory Policy changes Cultural consensus analysis

Synthesize and Validate Comparison with scientific literature Quantitative coding Post-collection ground-truthing

Chapter 2

Case Study: Fish Passage and The Avon River Causeway

Introduction

The use of TLEK to aid in field surveys is not uncommon, and can produce different results and outcomes than standard scientific procedures alone. The combination of these two knowledge sources in the design and implementation of field surveys demonstrates increased success in short and long-term project goals. In 2017–2018, both standard scientific fishery data was collected, based on the needs of the overseeing agencies, and TLEK was collected and related to the Avon River and fish movement.

Cues were sought that may be used as indicators of a change in residency of a local fish population. Sources of TLEK information were provided by a local knowledge holder with direct fishing experience. In both cases, historical and indirect knowledge were excluded.

Comparing Scientific Monitoring with TLEK

The Avon River estuary near the Windsor causeway has been studied extensively for ecological considerations of a proposed highway twinning since 2002. One overarching theme of previous studies, prior to the instatement of provincial passage requirements and studies after 2002, was that none focused on assessing the level of fish passage at the causeway, nor was any fish passage design a part of the causeway’s original construction (Percy and Harvey, 2000; Daborn and Brylinsky, 2004). Daborn et al. (2003 and 2004) reported on the morphodynamics and environmental characteristics of the site from 2002–2004 in addition to a baseline survey of fishes and birds.

Environmental conditions on either side of the causeway and flow rates at the gates

during opening and closing were used to infer and qualify suitability for fish passage.

Fish were surveyed by beach seining, and fishing with gillnets and eel traps to capture the many species of marine and freshwater fishes.

Daborn et al. (2003) conducted beach seining between 1 August–2 October 2003.

Six sites were sampled on six separate occasions during this period, yielding ~2,000 fishes of which 1,316 were measured from 11 species. Additionally, experimental drift nets, eel traps and fyke nets were deployed on the seaward (tidal side) and lake side of the gates starting 22 May 2003 through the last week of July. They found six diadromous fishes: Alewife, American Eel, Atlantic Tomcod (Microgadus tomcod), Blueback Herring

(Alosa pseudoharengus), Striped Bass (Morone saxatilis) and White Perch (Morone americana). The majority of fishes documented were small-bodied fishes like stickleback and dace, which were obtained by beach seining. The quantity and variety of fishes relative to the methods as estimated by Isaacman et al. (2005), were low on both counts, but did provide sufficient data to satisfy the study’s primary objective to create a baseline of fish survey data (Table 2).

Relatedly, sedimentological findings collected by various methods including the use of echo-sounders, field sampling and aerial photographic comparisons since the causeway was installed have largely indicated a consistent pattern. Given the unique activity of the Minas Basin’s tidal flow, there is an unavoidable flux in the amount and movement of silt and mud in any tidal river system month-to-month or year-to-year; the

Avon River included. The specific changes over time since the causeway was installed, however, indicate that the 1 km area on either side of the causeway has limited the width of the river by up to three quarters or 6 m (van Proosdij et al., 2006 and 2007). The

effects of sediment deposition diminish greatly the further out from the structure, however, the freshwater lake flow keeps the mud built up and is one reason gate operations are fundamental to maintaining the ecosystems existing on either side of the causeway.

Examples of marine TLEK studies include feeding behavior in fishes (Batista and

Lima, 2010), reproductive behavior (Silvano et al., 2010), changes in abundance (Carter and Nielson, 2011) and seasonal or migratory movements (Murray et al., 2008).

Increased project success was shown in all cases with the use of TLEK. The cumulative gain over time from building on such knowledge, corroborating it with the most current policy and technology can lead to even greater gains for conservation (Erikson et al.,

2007). These include increased awareness and improved assessment capacity by management (Lauer and Aswani, 2010; Manajarrez-Martinez et al., 2010; Rajamani and

Marsh, 2010). Espinoza-Tenorio et al. (2010) is among a growing number of influential projects that directly resulted in improved conservation via focused data collection and instatement of marine protected areas. The study explored the co-management of fisheries resources in a multiplex lagoon ecosystem in Mexico. It illuminated the idea that cross-disciplinary projects focused on small-scale, localized areas are able to identify and act on specific local sources of pressure on fishes more efficiently.

Objectives

The opportunity to compare and contrast the quality, quantity, and effort to obtain fish movement data within a scientific project scope was afforded in the Avon River study. It also offered the chance to assess the difference in outcomes on comparable fish surveys in the same site with and without the use of local expertise through comparisons

to prior fish surveys (Daborn et al., 2003; Daborn and Brylinsky; 2004, Isaacman, 2005).

The survey methodology was adapted but not exactly the same as past studies. The study herein used the guidance of a seasoned local Avon River commercial fisherman to gather information on the temporal presence and relative abundance of local diadromous fishes and to gather TLEK. The objectives were:

1) To conduct fish surveys alongside a local commercial fisherman to collect fisheries

data on run timing and general movement patterns. In this case, movement being

inferred from relative abundance changes over time at different sites.

2) To compare the results of this study conducted with local expertise with previous

results at the same study site conducted without it

3) To collect TLEK and characterize fish run times and movements with respect to it,

and to associated TLEK, run times and movements with environmental variables

where possible.

Materials and Methods

The study site was divided into two main sections: ‘tideside’ consisting of the area immediately downstream of the Avon River causeway flood control gate, and

‘lakeside’ consisting of Lake Pisiquid (Figures 1 and 2). Fishes were collected over the spring, summer, and fall seasons for two years 7 April–8 November 2017 and 11 April–6

November 2018 using gillnets, fyke nets, eel traps and/or minnow traps. TLEK was collected on the same days as fish sampling.

Field Sampling

Gillnets, fyke nets, eel traps, and/or minnow traps were deployed each field day

(Table 3). A ‘set’ was defined as one deployment of a gillnet, fyke net, eel trap or minnow trap. Commercial fishing uses Imperial units expressed as fractions thus they are adopted here for mesh sizes. Mesh sizes for gillnets are measured as a stretched diagonal.

Multiple gillnet mesh sizes were used depending on which fish species was targeted: smelt nets were 1.5 inches, and larger nets were 2.75, 2.89, 3.0 and 5.0 inches (Figure 3).

Fyke net mesh size was 0.5 inch square mesh (Figure 4). A range of 1–12 sets were conducted per day with the majority of days having one set. A set began when the boat was anchored and one end of a net was initially deployed, or a trap was deployed. The latest a set took place was approximately 1.5 hours prior to high tide.

Minnow traps were cylindrical, 16.3 cm long and 7.5 cm in diameter (Figure 5).

Two entrances were conical shaped with openings of 2.5 cm. Mesh size was 1 cm high x

0.6 cm wide. Eel traps were rectangular, 12 cm high x 12 cm wide x either 28 or 23.5 cm long (Figure 5). The single entrance was a tapering square on one end with an opening of

8.2 cm. Mesh size was 2.25 cm high x 1.05 cm wide. A range of 1–26 eel traps were

deployed at the start of each fishing trip, along the river or coastal banks in eelgrass and away from turbid waters. Subsequent trap sets occurred within the same day occasionally, but the majority of eel traps were deployed one set per day. Periodically traps were set over night or for several days. In these cases, fishes were recorded to be caught on the date when the trap was hauled in. Eel traps were baited with fresh, dead fish usually

Alewife or Blueback Herring. Minnow traps were deployed similarly to eel traps, along riverbanks and under aquatic structure e.g. submerged trees. Minnow traps were used only on 4 occasions precluding any meaningful analyses (Table 3).

Biological Data

Each fish species was brought on board and placed in dry fish bins separated by set. Where only a few fishes were caught, most were measured. Where many fishes were caught, a subset of about 50–100 fish from each set and each species was quickly measured using a 1 m measuring board or flexible measuring tape (depending on what species was sampled). Total length (TL) measured from the tip of the snout to the tip of the tail and fork length (FL) measured from the tip of the snout to the indentation of a forked tail were measured to a precision of 1 mm. Fishes were measured by up to two people. Simultaneously, fishes were counted by species and returned to the water in the general area where they were caught. Fishes discernable to sex were sexed. To support other projects, some fishes (e.g. Striped Bass) were tagged with dart tags (Floy model FF-

95) and both American Eel and White Perch were tagged with passive integrated transponder tags (see Killacky 2018); tagging is mentioned here as it did extract some time from other tasks.

Environmental Monitoring

Small temperature loggers (iBCod, Alpha Mach, model Z) were deployed at various sites to record temperature at intervals ranging from 20 min to 1.5 hr (Figure 5).

Temperature was also taken at the start of each fishing day using the onboard temperature probe attached to a fish finder. Dissolved oxygen (DO), salinity, pH and temperature were taken occasionally throughout Lake Pisiquid and rarely on the tideside. DO, salinity, and temperature profiles were taken in the deepest part of Lake Pisiquid at 0.5 m depth intervals. Current, local weather data was obtained with a portable weather station

(Kestrel 5500) Garmin portable GPS units were used to record the location of net and trap sets along with other related data at sites of interest.

Catch Per Unit Effort

CPUE was calculated as the number of fish caught divided by the effort. For gill nets and fyke nets, effort was measured as set time in minutes. Gill nets were nominally set for 30 min so CPUE was calculated as number of fish per 30 min. This calculation also was used for fyke nets. For eel traps and minnow traps, effort was measured as the number of individual traps set out on a given trapping event (each set was a trapping event). Relative abundance, CPUE, lengths and sex (where possible) of fishes were recorded in excel, compiled and analyzed in R using RStudio to create figures and tables.

The data was statistically analyzed using Student’s t-tests and 휒2 tests in support of the findings where questions arose requiring statistical analyses. The data from both years was generally used to characterize movements of fishes between the tide and lakeside.

TLEK cues were mapped to fish abundances or CPUE to visualize potential run time indicators.

TLEK Data Collection

TLEK was recorded through conversations with knowledgeable community members including commercial fishermen, farmers, land and business owners and government resource managers. TLEK information was organized by content and timing and classified into related groups of cues. Cues were focused on fish movements, specifically migratory run timing (when fishes moved between either side of the gates).

Cues were categorized by taxonomic groups: plants, insects, birds and related secondary cues (e.g. cutting of hay bales, a secondary plant indicator). Only when there was a relevant cue provided by a local knowledge holder was the information recorded.

Collection of these data served as a preliminary outline of the types of data to use in subsequent community workshops and questionnaires (Chapter 3).

Results

General Catch Trends

Weekly project fishing effort was higher in 2017 than 2018, but seasonal coverage was similar (Figure 6). Mean daily surface temperatures tracked typical seasonal trends regardless of site (tideside or lakeside) (Figure 7). In total, 19,111 fishes were caught from 18 identified species (3 unidentified flounder were caught tideside in

2018. A subsample of 9,920 fishes from various species were sampled for TL and 6,574 sampled for FL. Of the species caught, 9 were designated as migratory (moving between either side of the causeway for life history purposes) (Table 4). Blueback Herring was only identified on one day in 2017 by surgical examination; otherwise Alewife and

Blueback Herring were grouped together as Gaspereau, but herein called Alewife. One

Atlantic Salmon was caught lakeside on 24 July 2018. After it was caught, only eel traps were deployed lakeside. The remaining fishes were designated as non-migratory (Table

4). Six diadromous species were recorded in 2017 on either side of the gates, but only three in 2018. Eel traps were set from 12 April–8 November 2017 and 12 April–6

November 2018. From 1–26 individual eel traps were set each day (mean 9 ± 7 traps, median 5). Median eel trap set period was 2.6 hr (mean 17.1 ± 29.2 hr, range 0.18–188 hr; Figure 8).

Migratory Fish Movement

More migratory fishes were caught tideside than lakeside, and more non- migratory fishes (mostly obligate freshwater fishes) were caught lakeside than tideside

(Table 4). Occasionally Lake Pisiquid was drained quickly and obligate freshwater fishes would be caught tideside (e.g. White Sucker and Yellow Perch). Alewife and American

Eel were the most common species caught throughout the fishing period on both sides of the causeway (Table 4). Low CPUE was found for gillnets (Figure 9) and eel traps

(Figure 10) for many species. Therefore, four species were selected for correlating to

TLEK cues (Alewife, American Eel, Atlantic Tomcod, and Striped Bass) based on notable increases in relative abundances and CPUE i.e. a noticeable run time (excepting

American Eel) (Figures 11–14). American Eel were chosen because it is a known catadromous migrator and a portion of the population moves between fresh and salt water during its feeding, yellow eel phase (Cote et al., 2015). White Perch are designated as a freshwater species, but can tolerate salt water. However, it does not migrate to spawn thus was not considered for TLEK.

Fyke Nets and Minnow Traps

Fyke nets were set only four days in 2017 (12, 24 and 25 June all lakeside and 22

Aug tideside). Five species were caught lakeside (Alewife, American Eel, White Perch,

White Sucker and Yellow Perch) and only American Eel and White Perch tideside (Table

4). Abundance ranged from 1–30 fish with 26 Alewife caught on 12 June and 30 White

Perch caught on 24 June; otherwise a maximum of 9 fish were caught per set. Multiple fishes were caught all days with Alewife, American Eel, White Perch and White Sucker caught each day in June, and American Eel and White Perch caught tideside in August.

Only one Yellow Perch was caught (12 June).

Minnow traps were set only three days in 2017 (20 and 23 October and 7

November) all tideside. Four fishes were caught; three Atlantic Tomcod (one on 20

October and two on 23 October) and one American Eel (7 November) (Table 4). The use of fyke nets and minnow traps was discontinued after 7 November because of time

constraints, the effectiveness of gill nets and eel traps for the same fishes, the project focus on fish moving across the causeway not small-bodied fishes, and complementary electrofishing being done in the upper reaches of the Avon River by project collaborators.

Because of low abundances and only a few days of fishing, fyke net and minnow trap catches were not considered separately in further analyses. However, total abundances were pooled with catches from other gear for overall analyses.

Gill Nets

Four diadromous fishes were collected by gill net and traps each year, on either side of the gates: Alewife, Atlantic Tomcod, American Eel and Striped Bass. Additional estuarine fishes like the White Perch were found on both sides of the gate. Alewife had the highest CPUE on both lakeside and tideside, followed by White Sucker, Striped Bass and White Perch. Alewife was most numerous at both sampling sites and in both years by gill net captures. The next most common species captured by gill net, pooled across years, were Striped Bass, White Sucker and White Perch (Table 4).

Four species had enough data to complete statistical comparisons of CPUE.

Alewife CPUE was highest on either side. White Sucker was higher on lakeside than tideside (Table 5); however, there were only 3 White Sucker caught by gillnet tideside and these were likely not venturing into salt water by choice. White Perch CPUE was not significantly different at either site (Table 5). Striped Bass CPUE was significantly higher tideside, but only four captures were noted lakeside (Table 5).

Eel Traps

American eel was most numerous at both sampling sites in both years by eel trap.

The next most common species captured by eel trap, pooled across years, were the

Atlantic Tomcod, White Sucker and White Perch. The White Sucker was more common on the lakeside traps, and the Brown Bullhead was also documented in significant numbers on the lakeside eel traps in 2018 (Table 4).

The proportion of eels caught at either site in either year were the same (p=0.213,

휒2=12, df=9). Overall, the proportion of Atlantic Tomcod caught in eel traps was significantly greater than the proportion caught in gillnets (p<0.001, 휒2=701, df=1). In

2017, the causeway gate was opened to drain the lake allowing tomcod to move into the lakeside. Otherwise, tomcod was mostly found tideside (Table 4).

Three species had enough data to complete statistical comparisons of CPUE.

Alewife CPUE was lowest on either side, followed by Atlantic Tomcod and American

Eel (Table 6). Significantly greater CPUE was found in both American Eel and Atlantic

Tomcod on the tideside, but Alewife CPUE was statistically the same (Table 6).

However, on only 2 occasions Alewife was caught in eel traps at each site.

TLEK

TLEK cues were obtained during the field sampling in both years and recorded alongside catches and other environmental information. The designation of a TLEK indicator in terms of this study was an apparent event prior to the start of and/or end of a run time. TLEK cues were categorized by organism type and or life stage along with temporal pattern (Table 7). Useful cues were incorporated into a broader community survey (Chapter 3). TLEK observations were recorded on between 07 April–17 October in 2017, and once in April of 2018. A fish run time was defined as the time at which it moved into or out of fresh water. Data for fish run-timing was pooled across both years.

A total of 63 individual TLEK observations were documented including 1 amphibian-

related, 33 bird-related, 6 invertebrate-related and 20 plant-related. Thirty of the 63 observations occurred in April, thereafter cues declined in frequency (Table 7). One possible reason for the decline in cues after April would be the strong association of the events with Spring temperature rise.

TLEK observations were summarized as presence/absence, or increase/decrease.

The categorization of whether something was present versus absent applied to the whereabouts of species such as birds and designation of another species’ life stage (that is, the ‘presence’ or existence of seed formation, for example). The subsequent categorization of an increase or decrease applied to a temporal trend related to cues (for example the seasonal migration of birds). Isolated observations (documented only once) and those not explicitly linked to a documented, and verifiable fish movement pattern at the time of the study, by the provider of TLEK were not focused on.

Cues were plotted with fish CPUE of either gill net or eel trap abundances to map each cue in predicting fish run timing. The designation of a run time in terms of this study was a marked increase in CPUE leading to a peak run (peak abundance) thereafter returning to previous, background abundance levels. Discernable peaks during suspected migration time are the key feature of run timing. Abundances with many peaks make it difficult to determine if a single run time migration was occurring, or whether a species was following some other abundance pattern (e.g. increases in activity due to feeding or emergence from overwintering sites).

Alewife showed a peak in abundance both years in the first three weeks of May

(Figure 11). The start of increased Alewife numbers was marked by plant TLEK cues

(greening grass, white birch and colts foot blooming and willow tree leaf formation) in

late April. The decline of Alewife numbers after the major migratory movement in late

May to early June was observed in both years.

American eel displayed two events of increased relative abundance, which may be migratory, documented in mid-April and late September-October (Figure 12). The TLEK cues for the spring run included plants (willow tree leaf formation, white cherry blooming, dandelion seeding) and bird cues (arrival of migratory bird). The fall American eel run was associated with two main cues: marsh grass seed formation, and the departure of migratory birds such as the sandpiper.

Atlantic Tomcod was the only species captured that has a spawning event and associated migratory event extending outside of the sampling period of April to October

(Figure 13). The onset of the increase in abundance was still documented and associated with TLEK cues. The marsh grass seed formation, and the departure of migratory birds co-occurring with the fall American eel run was associated with the rise in abundance of

Atlantic Tomcod beginning in the first week of October and continuing through the end of sampling in early November.

Striped Bass showed a peak in abundance both years between early June through early July (Figure 14). The start of the increase was marked by plant TLEK cues (the blooming of serviceberry trees and harvesting of hay) in the first week of June; the fish run lasted for 32 ± 3 days. The blooming of Spartina alterniflora and Convolvulus arvensis at the start of July is associated with the decline in Striped Bass numbers in the waterway (tideside).

Discussion

The type of gear and method of deployment was a major factor in the number and type of fishes captured during field sampling (Hamley et al., 1985, Portt et al., 2006).

The smaller and fixed dimensions of a trap (eel trap or minnow trap) are conducive to the entry but not the exit of fishes due to the funnel shape of the gear; baited traps attracted voracious species such as American Eel more so. The flexible, but carefully designed diamond-shaped gill nets are perfectly suited to the capture of finfish that correspondingly fit within the diamond pattern. Gill nets for this study were specifically designed to be hung ‘on the diamond’ rather than ‘on the square’. The mesh size for each style would be equivalent, but the net efficiency is better for diamond hung nets (D.

Porter, pers. comm.). The gill net captured significantly more finfish species such as

Alewife, Striped Bass, White Perch and White Sucker due to fish size and shape. The lengths of captured species was an indicator of the habitat suitability and life stage for the fishes, further supporting the idea that these changes in abundance are related to important events such as spawning. Furthermore, eel and minnow traps captured more species not caught by gill net such as American Eel, Atlantic Tomcod and, on the lakeside specifically, the Brown Bullhead.

Several key trends highlight the importance of adequate gate operations for diadromous fishes like Alewife, American Eel, Atlantic Tomcod, and Striped Bass, and salt water tolerant White Perch, which were the most numerous at both sampling sites in both years. For example, Striped Bass were found lakeside during its known spawning times in its native spawning Shubenacadie River system (DFO, 2014). In the case of the

Striped Bass for example, this may be due to a robust population that is feeding before

and after peak-spawning season outside previously documented waterways. There are numerous prey species present during the presence of the peak Striped Bass run such as smelt, Alewife, Perch and small-bodied fishes such as Redbelly Dace. Regardless of the association basis, whether seeking a food source, spawning event or other, the inter- species migratory events overlap with TLEK cues.

The outcome of past studies (Daborn et al. 2003; Daborn and Brylinsky, 2004;

Isaacman, 2005) had commonalities with the recent study, however the input of a local resource user and knowledge holder had marked influence. More fishes, abundance and more precise run times were found herein due to the advisements and incorporation of

TLEK. Nine additional species were found that were not found in previous studies between 2002 and 2004 (Daborn et al., 2003; Daborn and Brylinsky, 2004). Abundance was significantly different for the majority of species, such as the American Eel, of which one was captured in the 2002 study (Daborn and Brylinsky, 2004) and 3,399 were captured in 2017–2018.

Seasonal and migratory changes in abundance associated with life events such as spawning (e.g. ‘run times’) were recorded that were not seen in previous studies. Alewife and Striped Bass critical run times were accounted for in April and May of 2017 and

2018 and two other run times found in October of each year. The factors involved in the timing of onset, duration and seasonal patterns of fish runs are numerous: climate, habitat access and quality, water quality, and resource productivity all align (Robinson et al.,

2009; Crone et al., 2019). The water temperature data was comparable in the most recent study with previous data from 2002–2007 (Daborn and Brylinsky, 2004; van Proosdij et al., 2006 and 2007). This is one of the most crucial variables and determinants of

seasonal fish movement for diadromous species (Crozier et al., 2007; Hsieh et al., 2009;

DFO, 2014).

TLEK cues were shown as potentially useful reference points to gauge the likelihood that underlying environmental conditions are favorable to key movements of fishes through the waterway at critical life stages. Weather conditions for plants blooming, or availability of food for migratory bird species for example, are tied to co- occurring changes in the habitat suitability for fishes. Studies on air temperature, sunlight and precipitation associated with the seasonal events of plant and insect life cycles such as greening of grass, blooming of willow leaves and seed formation of dandelions support overlapping timing with spring fish movement (Taylor and Garbary 2003; Garbary and

Taylor 2007; Bowron et al., 2010; Garbary et al., 2011; Bowron et al., 2010). Insect and invertebrate emergence have been linked with similar air and water seasonal temperature trends, and have been linked directly in some cases to the increase in fish species for which they are a food source (Kovach et al., 2010; Glazaczow et al., 2016; McCann et al.,2003). TLEK cues allow resources users to infer and predict movements of fishes without having to spend the time and money involved in habitat and water monitoring efforts.

For the purpose of this case study, the use of TLEK related to the Avon River focused on gaining a more comprehensive picture of fishes run times as part of characterizing movements of diadromous fishes. In most cases, run times are associated with spawning runs, but movement in general may be for various activities such as feeding. Anadromous fishes have strong natal instincts to return to a river for spawning based on particular life history, cues, and so forth. Catadromous fishes, such as American

Eel, migrate from fresh water to salt water to spawn and may have a host of different cues. In either case, fishes move at different times and thus require access at different times. Thus, barriers to fish movement will affect natural fishes movement.

One barrier to fishes movement is the causeway flood control gate (‘gate’). The gate restricts movement through its operation. Thus, gate operations, relative fish abundance, and run timing are important to characterize to help inform gate operations regardless of gate design. Relating run times with TLEK cues may identify indicators of fishes movement, providing means by which fishes movements can be predicted and used in gate operations. For example, the blossoming of certain plants may be related to a fish- spawning run because it reflects the underlying environmental conditions and thus serve as a useful indicator of fish migration (Hohausová et al., 2003).

Fish surveys in the 2002 and 2004 studies used a randomized sampling protocol.

However, a random protocol does not benefit from local knowledge on season start and end times, or the importance of environmental signals (indications of movement) in determining when and where to sample. The results may well suit a purely scientific perspective, but may also miss critical migrations or run times that can occur within short periods (days), improper gear deployment, insufficient diel sampling times and inefficiencies in sampling techniques due to lack of experience and or sampling effort.

Nevertheless, general peak migrations were observed consistent with previous gill net captures at the causeway (Daborn et al., 2003; Isaacman, 2005).

Specificity of run time relative to past fish sampling findings centered on Alewife,

Striped Bass and American eel (Rulifson and Dadswell, 1995; Douglas et al., 2003;

Daborn et al., 2003 and 2004; Isaacman, 2005). Alewife showed a peak run time of mid-

May; Striped Bass had a peak run between early June and early July. The TLEK cues for these runs were up to two weeks prior to the peak event. American Eel populations in the waterway began to increase in mid-late April, relatively consistent movement inter- tidally, and an outward migration to sea in late August to mid-October. These trends are consistent with other studies on known fish movement.

Alewife migration in provincial rivers is generally between late April and early

May (Leim and Scott, 1996; DFO, 2012), with spawning events occurring between early

June and August (Marcy, 1976a). Striped Bass migration in provincial rivers is generally between early May through mid-late June (DFO, 2014). Due to the migratory nature of

American Eel in the fall (Cairns et al., 2001; McCleave and Edeline, 2009) and fewer sampling periods at that time, no strong TLEK cues for migratory patterns of eels were documented. The peaks in abundance in early spring and late summer were movement patterns associated with TLEK cues, associated with underlying life-history events such as feeding and establishment of territory (Jessop, 1975; Robinet et al., 2003)

TLEK cues of these movements support the idea that environmental variables can provide reliable indications of a major migratory event for fishes. In particular, they offer a dynamic means of gauging the peak run season-to-season, as they incorporate cues of the starting and ending points of a peak run before it occurs. The Avon River case study increased specific information to generate a more accurate depiction of the current ecological state of a resource when scientists incorporated the expertise of local knowledge holders into the study. The use of TLEK in the guidance of such fish surveys where there is a valid reason to focus on movements or behavior of fishes related to a structure such as a dam offers more specific information than default scientific survey

designs afford (Hallwass et al., 2013; Berkstrom et al., 2019). The integration of TLEK is by no means universally applicable, but when the case is localized and project goals are specific to movements of fishes in a waterway it is favorable to the success of project outcomes.

Table 2. Summary of seasonal and migratory fish movement from studies before the

2017-2018 surveys (Adapted from Isaacman, 2005).

Season Upstream Migrations Downstream Migrations

Spring Gaspereau (Alewife; Gaspereau (spent adults) (Apr to Jun) spawning) Salmon (juveniles) Salmon (spring run Smelt (juveniles and spent spawning) adults) Smelt (spawning) Sea trout Shad (spawning) Tomcod (juveniles) Eel Striped bass Summer Gaspereau (end of Gaspereau (juveniles and spent (Jul to Aug) spawning) adults) Sea trout (spawning) Salmon (juveniles and spent adults) Shad (juveniles) Fall Salmon (fall run spawning) Salmon (spent adults) (Sep to Nov) Striped bass (overwintering) Shad (juveniles) Eel (spawning) Winter Tomcod (spawning) Tomcod (spent adults) (Dec to Feb)

Sources: Leim (1924), Peterson et al. (1980); Williams and Daborn (1984); Stewart and Auster (1987); Loesch (1987); Scott and Scott (1988); Stokesbury and Sadswell (1989); Fortin et al. (1990); Jessop (1999, 2000); NSDAF (2001a, 2001b); Amiro (2003); DFO (2003); Douglas et al. (2003); Gibson and Myers (2003); Daborn et al. (2004).

Table 3. Initial and Final Dates associated with use of various fishing gear.

Year Gear Type Date Initial Final 2017 Gill Net 7 Apr 2 Nov Fyke Net 12 Jun 22 Aug Eel Trap 12 Apr 8 Nov Minnow Trap 20 Oct 7 Nov 2018 Gill Net 11 Apr 5 Nov Eel Trap 12 Apr 6 Nov

Common Name Abundance Migratory 2017 2018 Lakeside Tideside Lakeside Tideside ET FN GN Total ET MT FN GN Total ET GN Total ET GN Total Alewife* 6 29 888 923 1 4582 4583 489 489 1 7802 7803 Y American Eel* 976 14 990 795 1 1 1 798 710 710 897 5 902 Y American Shad 9 9 1 1 Y American Smooth 6 6 N Flounder Atlantic Sturgeon 1 1 Y Atlantic Salmon 1 1 Y Atlantic Tomcod* 31 31 369 3 5 377 223 111 334 Y Blueback Herring 2 2 2 2 Y Brown Bullhead 1 1 79 79 2 2 N Flounder sp. 3 3 N Rainbow Smelt 1 1 75 75 40 40 Y Smallmouth Bass 19 1 20 1 1 17 17 N Striped Bass* 2 2 169 169 2 2 4 127 127 Y Summer Flounder 1 1 N Threespine 1 1 N Stickleback White Perch 68 35 31 134 1 49 50 3 63 66 34 34 N White Sucker 58 18 126 202 3 3 2 92 94 N Winter Flounder 2 N Yellow Perch 8 9 2 12 1 13 N

Table 5. Comparison of catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) of various fishes caught in gill nets on both sides of the Avon River causeway. CPUE represented as mean ± standard deviation.

Common Site n CPUE p_value t_value df Name Alewife Lakeside 78 11.2 ± 12.8 <0.001 3.56 298 Tideside 227 22.7 ± 43.9 Striped Bass Lakeside 4 0.54 ± 0.25 0.001 3.95 20.7 Tideside 165 1.33 ± 2.04 White Perch Lakeside 35 1.22 ± 1.28 0.120 -1.58 63.5 Tideside 54 0.79 ± 1.11 White Sucker Lakeside 54 2.29 ± 2.89 <0.001 -4.09 51.6 Tideside 3 0.60 ± 0.20

Table 6. Comparison of catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) of various fishes caught in eel traps on both sides of the Avon River causeway. CPUE represented as mean ± standard deviation.

Common Site n CPUE p_value t_value df Name Alewife Lakeside 2 0.18 ± 0.14 0.348 1.23 1.91 Tideside 2 0.38 ± 0.18 American Eel Lakeside 62 4.27 ± 4.29 0.024 2.29 112 Tideside 77 6.98 ± 9.19 Atlantic Lakeside 6 0.58 ± 0.52 0.005 2.95 38.8 Tomcod Tideside 39 3.51 ± 6.03

Table 7. TLEK cues/indicator categorization from observations on both sides of the

Avon River causeway.

Organism Date Species Status Type 7 Apr 2017 plant pussywillow blooming 7 Apr 2017 bird eagle present 7 Apr 2017 bird black_duck present 7 Apr 2017 bird canada_goose present 7 Apr 2017 bird crow present 7 Apr 2017 bird bufflehead present 7 Apr 2017 bird pheasant present 8 Apr 2017 plant pussywillow blooming 8 Apr 2017 plant willow shoots 8 Apr 2017 bird eagle present 8 Apr 2017 bird canada_goose present 8 Apr 2017 bird crow present 8 Apr 2017 bird pheasant present 8 Apr 2017 bird starling present 12 Apr 2017 plant pussywillow blooming 12 Apr 2017 plant crocus blooming 12 Apr 2017 bird eagle present 12 Apr 2017 bird black_backed_gull present 12 Apr 2017 bird black_capped_chikadee present 12 Apr 2017 invertebrate caddisfly present 12 Apr 2017 invertebrate dragonfly present 12 Apr 2017 invertebrate stonefly present 12 Apr 2017 invertebrate amphipod present 13 Apr 2017 plant pussywillow blooming 13 Apr 2017 amphibian spring_peeper present 19 Apr 2017 bird loon present 19 Apr 2017 invertebrate mussel present 25 Apr 2017 plant willow leaves 25 Apr 2017 plant white_birch blooming 25 Apr 2017 plant colts_foot blooming 1 May 2017 bird eagle present 1 May 2017 bird cormorant present 14 May 2017 plant plum blooming 14 May 2017 plant dandelion seeding 15 May 2017 plant white_cherry blooming 22 May 2017 bird cormorant present 22 May 2017 bird shorebirds present

24 May 2017 plant apple blooming 24 May 2017 plant lilac blooming 24 May 2017 plant horse_chestnut blooming 24 May 2017 bird seagull decreasing 30 May 2017 plant apple fruiting 30 May 2017 plant hay harvested 30 May 2017 bird black_duck increasing 30 May 2017 bird cormorant increasing 6 Jun 2017 plant serviseberry blooming 11 Jun 2017 bird eagle present 11 Jun 2017 bird red_wing_blackbird present 11 Jul 2017 plant bindweed blooming 19 Jul 2017 plant spartina_alterniflora blooming 19 Jul 2017 bird black_duck present 19 Jul 2017 bird plover present 19 Jul 2017 invertebrate noseeum increasing 20 Jul 2017 bird blue_heron present 8 Aug 2017 bird duck present 8 Aug 2017 bird sandpiper feeding 17 Aug 2017 bird blue_heron present 28 Aug 2017 bird sandpiper decreasing 6 Sep 2017 bird sandpiper absent 17 Oct 2017 plant marsh_grass seed formation 17 Oct 2017 bird blue_heron present 16 Apr 2018 plant grass greening 29 Jul 2018 bird sandpiper increasing

Figure 1. Avon River tide side and lakeside; The Avon River Causeway is located at

44°59'30.9"N 64°08'40.8"W.

Figure 2. Avon River tide side (forefront) and lakeside (backdrop); leftside shows the saltmarsh (courtesy of van Proosdij et al., 2018).

Figure 4. A 5-hoop, aluminum framed fyke net with 2.25” mesh and overall length of

4m, similar to that used in the 2017–2018 field seasons to trap upstream fishes on Lake

Pisiquid.

Figure 5. Minnow and eel traps showing dimensions (courtesy Jillian Arany, 2018).

Figure 6. Weekly project fishing effort (hours) for each site in the Avon River over the

2017-2018 seasons.

Figure 7. Mean daily surface temperature, collected via Fishfinder boat-mounted temperature logger in 2017-2018, of Avon River on the lakeside and tideside of the causeway.

Figure 8. Deployment periods for eel traps.

Figure 9. CPUE overall for all species captured by gillnet tideside and lakeside in 2017-

2018.

Figure 10. CPUE overall by season for all species captured by eel trap in 2017-2018.

Figure 11. CPUE by date for Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) captured by gillnet in

2017-2018.

Figure 12. CPUE by date for American Eel (Anguilla rostrata) captured by eel trap in

2017-2018.

Figure 13. CPUE by date for Atlantic Tomcod (Microgadus tomcod) captured by eel trap in 2017-2018.

Figure 14. CPUE by date for Striped Bass (Marone saxitilus) captured by gillnet in

2017-2018.

Chapter 3

Community Workshop and Survey Development

Introduction

Collaborators in the state of our regional and local fisheries include, but are not limited to, recreational, industrial, commercial, institutional, and traditional marine resource users. Fisheries in Minas Basin are under some form of management, but given a history of overexploitation and vulnerability to effects of climate change, an anticipatory approach to management is needed within an ecosystem-based framework

(Lynam et al., 2007). To boost the effectiveness and adherence to marine policy directives, conserve resources for future use, and better combat the environmental changes associated with climate change, knowledge holders must align on current issues.

TLEK offers a relatively untapped route to efficiency and cooperation and the expertise may be a faster way to identify and predict changes in trends from environmental variables because it is consistent and enduring knowledge highly specific to a site (Felt,

1994). Additionally, the most imminent and useful TLEK is that which is highly specialized and small-scale in its application. The issue with TLEK research is the apparent difficulty in applying local ecological knowledge to a given biologic research initiative; the method of doing so, and measuring the success afterwards, is not established in the research community. Essentially, the ‘how’ of integrating local knowledge and experiential knowledge in the biologic framework is yet to be worked out.

Without a two-way channel of communication of knowledge about the state and changes of an ecosystem, there cannot be maximally effective resource management. The solution is two-fold: First, bolster direct communication of knowledge between resource

users (TLEK holders) and resource managers (SEK holders) to unify actions, increase adherence to regulations, and make management strategies more effective. Second, to bolster buy-in of community knowledge holders through citizen science initiatives via reward-based information collection. Without incentive, we can only expect misunderstanding and lack of desire to participate.

Means of Participatory Engagement and TLEK Acquisition

For fair evaluation of the usefulness of TLEK, and more broadly for the eventual application and integration of such knowledge, research projects must be focused on small-scale analysis: temporally, geographically, and honed to the finest scale possible in terms of study subject. The further away a study gets spatially and temporally from the current issue the more difficult the application and validation of TLEK becomes.

Establishment of protocols to minimize the spread of misunderstanding and exclusion of experienced resource users and knowledge holders from participation in management actions and discussions is needed. There is a growing need to investigate TLEK extraction methods, means of analysis and most important: application in some viable context. The objective is to construct a new means of community-driven survey creation for maximal integration of valuable information. The proposed means of attaining this are based on previous successful protocols for surveying TLEK, but with the incorporation of a new approach by which the invested community members are petitioned for collaboration prior to mass dispersion of a public survey. The precedent of identifying, targeting and engaging ‘experts’, that is those individuals with experience-based and or long-term knowledge of the fishery will be maintained in so far as can be managed through relationship-building activities and information sharing of the project. The

addition of a here-to-fore undocumented attempt to engage such community members in a strategic way such as the critical review of a proposed community knowledge questionnaire will be of use in the progression of such integrated scientific and TLEK conservation projects. If TLEK has a future role to play in conservation research and fisheries management, one step to solving its historic issues with incorporation in resource management is to engage and collaborate with the community knowledge holders earlier and more thoughtfully.

Objectives

The main objective was to gain insight in a hands-on manner into the content, scope and ultimate presentation of the community survey to a small group of invested local experts to refine it prior to dissemination among the broader public.

1) The aim of this portion of the project was to work directly with community

stakeholders to ensure the survey substance and wording was ideal for maximal

value-added information capture.

2) The collective and individual feedback was catalogued and changes to the survey

were made where there was majority agreement, although consensus was sought.

Materials and Methods

The process of soliciting, compiling and revising a survey for future public dissemination consisted of several phases. First, a baseline or preliminary survey was drafted consisting of 27 questions related to fishery and waterway use. A community workshop was advertised to the public to provide the opportunity for an in-depth, in- person workshop that would review and critique the drafted survey. The workshop involved attendees split into groups containing a varied subset of stakeholders, each of which had 20–30 minutes to discuss and provide feedback on each subsection of the proposed survey. The participants were given hard copies of the survey to write detailed comments on and a group document to provide over-arching comments on the survey.

The survey, after changes were incorporated from the workshop, consisted of 21 questions (Appendix 1).

Two surveys were ultimately created, though both contain identical content and phrasing, they were differentiated by location. The areas were the Avon River waterway in Windsor Nova Scotia and a series of five smaller river systems in Colchester County

Nova Scotia: the Folly, Debert, Portapique, Chiganois and Great Village Rivers. In conjunction with the paper survey, an online version using Lime Survey software was created in accordance with the final paper survey. The only difference between the paper and online version was the use of a map in the paper version to provide respondents with the chance to identify specific tidal barrier locations in a waterway. This proved much more useful because it’s easier for respondents to visualize on a physical map than through the online tools if available. The original and revised surveys were submitted pre and post editing to the Acadia Research and Ethics Board for approval (REB 18-71).

Results

The original survey presented to workshop participants (Table 8) in November

2018 consisted of four sections in addition to the general demographic information request. There were twenty-four questions in the survey initially (excluding unchanged demographic information) comprising these four sections, reduced to 21 in the same sections after the workshop feedback was incorporated. Five questions were eliminated altogether; 11 were revised regarding phrasing, and two were added. The major changes are broken down by suggested change (deletion, revision and/or addition) and survey category (Table 9).

The final survey adapted from the feedback at the community workshop was circulated and advertised as ‘Fish Movement and Tidal Barrier Survey’ to the local communities in Hants and Colchester counties; participation was voluntary and uncompensated. The survey was made available online for one month in July 2019. There were no respondents to the Colchester country river survey. Twenty-two Hants county community members took the survey, of which seven completed it and fifteen partially completed.

Demographic, Waterway use and Perception

The majority (87.5%) of respondents were referencing the Avon River and/or

Lake Pisiquid, averaged 48 years of age, and 75% identify as male. The average years of familiarity with the waterway was 38 years. The primary use being recreation fishing, followed by commercial fishing and other recreational activities such as boating (Figure

15). More than half of respondents identifying as seasonal users instead of year round users (Figure 16), and of the majority user that fish, 50% were recreational and 33%

commercial. Of the fishing resource users the most common months for this activity were April, May, June and September (Figure 17). Irrelevant of primary waterway use, regularity of use or type of user, 89% of survey respondents described the information on the operation, functionality and/or maintenance of tidal barrier(s) in the waterway as inadequate (Figure 18).

Fish and Seasonal Movement

The majority (63%) of respondents identified as having a moderate level of understanding of the fish and seasonal movement of fishes in the waterway; 25% felt they had a high level and 13% felt they had no understanding (Figure 19). There was a range of 15–60 species reported from the participating fishermen, 11 of which were specifically accounted for (Alewife, Striped Bass, American Eel, Speckled Trout, Brown Trout,

Atlantic Salmon, Creek Chubb, Redbelly Dace, White Sucker, White Perch and

Smallmouth Bass). Five respondents identified a handful of species not previously known or recorded to be present in the waterway including Spotted Hake, Sunfish, Atlantic

Sturgeon and Chain Pickerel. Five respondents identified TLEK cues of fish movement

(Chapter 2) that were indirectly related to non-aquatic events (Figure 20).

Habitat Use and Quality

The majority (57%) of respondents reported the perception of unsuitable or somewhat suitable habitat access for resident fish populations; 14% reported the perception of highly suitable habitat access level, along with 29% who reported no comment or ability to answer. 71.5% of respondents reported the perception of unsuitable or somewhat suitable habitat access for migratory fish populations; no respondents reported a highly suitable habitat access level, and 29% who reported no comment or

ability to answer. 71% of respondents described having knowledge of and the location of tidal barriers in the local area; the same proportion of participants relayed the consensus they do not feel management of the waterway in terms of fish passage and providing fish access to fish habitat is adequate to maintain fish at healthy population levels.

Discussion

Climate related adaptive management is a growing tool of many inter-related regulators in the province, including the Nova Scotia Department of Agriculture, which manages most tidal barriers, and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which manages aquatic ecosystems (Silvano et al., 2006; Elmer et al., 2017). The benefits of barriers, which usually provided the rationale for their construction, include: flood control; cost- effective transportation; increased land for agriculture and commercial development; and some forms of recreation (Daborn et al., 2004). For these reasons, it is unlikely that fish passage was of primary concern when the barriers were created but does not mean that their upkeep or other alterations would preclude or exclude incorporating passage. The cost to fish populations, in fact, is immense. Movement by fish species plays an essential role for acquiring the resources necessary to complete their life cycles (Hoffman and

Dunham, 2007). Some fishes are known to have complex life cycles in which they need to migrate for spawning, overwintering, feeding, and seeking refuge (Meixler et al.,

2009).

Consequences of barriers include reducing the ability of fish to migrate upstream to critical habitats (e.g. for spawning or feeding), fragmenting or quarantining upstream populations, increasing susceptibility to negative impacts of habitat disturbances, increasing the loss of genetic diversity at the population level leading to extirpation of species from upstream populations and the creation of ‘new’ habitats or species assemblages preferred by or more susceptible to non-native species (Canadian Wildlife

Service, 1998; Hoffman and Dunham, 2007).

The quantity of responses was not large, however the qualitative aspects of respondents’ demographics support the idea they were a well-represented public opinion.

The range in occupation, age and gender was diverse and indicate community interest in the Avon River causeway upgrades encompasses a large local workforce, multiple generations and age-groups and includes males, females and non-binary persons. The primary use of the waterway was also broadly represented, ranging from agricultural land owners, local small business operators and recreational users of the river. The most likely limitations for a larger quantity of workshop attendees and survey respondents was a lack of incentive or compensation for their participation, and a short period of time the survey was active. These constraints were due to time and funding of the study.

Despite the limiting factors, the survey ultimately made available to the public benefited from the feedback of the community workshop, and changes made to it prior to public dissemination. The major changes are centered on incomplete informational requests: the final survey would have missed information about fish migration, level and type of waterway use. TLEK cues for fish movement through the waterway included the addition of moon cycles as an indicator, as well as changes to phrasing to make the questions clearer. The primary waterway use question was also updated with clearer language, and the option of ‘water source’ was added. Despite being arguably minor changes, using locally-adapted verbiage and updating content for survey response options accordingly goes a long way in obtaining accurate information, generating community buy-in, and ultimately building capacity (Aswani and Lauer, 2006; Thornton and Scheer

2012; Shirk et al., 2012; Tengö et al., 2014)

The major resource users participating in the survey appear to be commercial and recreational fishermen; they overwhelmingly argue against the current gate operations or the existence of a tidal barrier on the Avon River generally. The counter argument bore out in the survey results was statistically insignificant but consisted of known farm land flood mitigation benefits and recreational use of the lake. One of the most crucial aspects of the survey outputs was the consensus that the oversight and community education related to the tidal barrier upgrades and management of the Avon River adjacent to the causeway was insufficient.

The theme of perceived inadequate access by community members to information on the management and operational activities of aquatic resources extends to numerous other studies in North America. The accounts of this largely apply to TEK specifically

(Huntington, 2000 and 2005; Simmons et al., 2012). A potential reason for this disconnect between resources users and managers may be legal and policy requirements limiting the kind and timeframe information can be disseminated publicly. The Avon

River causeway study highlights another possible explanation: socio-political partisan issues, as well as those involving a direct impact on community members’ livelihoods, make effective information sharing more difficult. The need for dialogue, that is a back- and-forth, whether by expert-guided interviewing, surveys, workshops or a combination, offer a more interactive experience for community members than an article, publication or information session. A community perception of access to information, and participation in decision-making is more likely to produce outcomes that are well received by diverse stakeholders.

Conclusions

The benefits of incorporating TLEK, and FEK specifically are documented in numerous areas of study, and increasingly cross-disciplinary research proved, when appropriately designed and executed, such amalgamated research can be incredibly useful (Espinoza-Tenorio et al., 2010; Lauer and Aswani, 2010; Laidler et al., 2011;

Olmstead and Sigman, 2015). Uniting traditional and local knowledge with standardized science-based knowledge can afford incredibly robust ongoing monitoring of resources that any given project could achieve on a finite budget. It can provide avenues for more efficient and specific data collection by using TLEK to refine field surveys by time and location. It provides a means of ownership over and participation in relevant small-scale conservation management efforts and research. In short, TLEK is vital to the success of any current and future efforts, across disciplines, to preserve our remaining resources.

Recent decades of research have led to the adaptation of such information sources becoming readily available through technology. Current tools have simplified getting, verifying, maintaining and disseminating information. Studies of TLEK related to movement patterns of at-risk diadromous fishes and their access to suitable habitats with the goal of relating it to “science-based” knowledge are important to resource management. Current applications, software, programs and means of communication have made the ease of getting, verifying, maintaining and disseminating information to and from the community is within reach. The argument that there is a significant effort to obtaining or using TLEK is diminishing. More importantly, the benefits of collecting and using TLEK are increasing.

Table 8. Workshop participant information.

Number of participants Stakeholder Group Sex Affiliation 2 Government oversight M Nova Scotia Department of Agriculture 3 First Nations involvement F Mi’kmaw Conservation Group, Glooscap First Nations 1 Community industry M Local business involvement 2 Academic involvement F Acadia University, Dalhousie University 1 Commercial fisherman M involvement 1 Local conservation interest M Friends of Avon River 4 Community member M(2), F(2) Local residents involvement

Table 9. Categorical sections A (Demographics & Waterway Use), B (Environmental &

Economic Perceptions), C (Fish & Fish Movement) and D (Tidal Barriers & Habitat

Access) of survey input and changes made prior to public advertisement.

Type of Change Question Survey Description Change # Section Revision 1 A Wording, change ‘acquainted’ Acquainted changed to ‘familiar’

2,4 A Add water source options Answer option ‘water Addition source’ added Revision 2,4 A Combine questions 2 & 4

Revision 3 A Formatting, missing asterisk No corresponding asterisk for extended response

Deletion 6,7,8 B Remove questions 8, too vague OR remove 6 & 7 but keep 8 Revision 9 B Change ‘to’ to ‘do’ Grammatical error, corrected wording Revision All B Change ‘perception’ to questions ‘understanding’ Deletion 10 B Remove #10 as it’s too controversial Revision/addition 18 C Add a question about whether the survey taker has knowledge about fish and fish movement before having them answer the rest Revision 13-18 C Combine 13-18 or simplify Addition 20 C Add in moon cycle option for cues Revision 11 C List possible species options Revision C Change wording of ‘associate’ to ‘change Revision 13 C Be more specific about indicator questions, specify these are looking for cues of specific species; movement Revision 17 & 18 D Combine 17 & 18 Revision 22 & 23 D Switch question order of 22 & 23 Deletion 21 D Remove ‘Weirs’ from answer options

Figure 15. Breakdown of survey respondents by primary waterway use.

Figure 16. Breakdown of survey respondents by level of waterway use.

Figure 17. Breakdown of the fishing months for survey respondents that use the waterway for recreation or commercial fishing.

Figure 18. Perception of sufficient public access to information related to fish passage, waterway use and watercourse alteration by the survey respondents.

Figure 19. Perception of survey respondents’ level of understanding of fish and seasonal movement of fish in the waterway.

Figure 20. Survey response summary of associations for timing of migrating fish runs or changes in fish abundance of any fish species with separate coincidental seasonal occurrences.

References

Armatas, C., T. Venn, B. B. McBride, A. E. Watson, and S. Carver. 2016. Opportunities

to utilize traditional phenological knowledge to support adaptive management of

social-ecological systems vulnerable to changes in climate and fire regimes.

Ecology and Society 21(1):16.

Aswani Canela, S. 2006. Incorporating fishermen’s local knowledge and behavior into

geographical information systems (qGIS) for designing marine protected areas in

Oceania. Human organization 65 5(1), 81–102.

Barnett, A. J., and H. C. Eakin. 2015. “We and us, not I and me”: Justice, social capital,

and household vulnerability in a Nova Scotia fishery. Applied Geography

59:107–116.

Barnett, A. J., and J. M. Anderies. 2014. Weak feedbacks, governance mismatches, and

the robustness of social-ecological systems: an analysis of the southwest Nova

Scotia lobster fishery with comparison to Maine. Ecology and society 19(4):39.

Batista, V., and L. Lima. 2010. In search of traditional bio-ecological knowledge useful

for fisheries co-management: The case of jaraquis Semaprochilodus spp.

(Characiformes, prochilodontidae) in Central Amazon, Brazil. Journal of

Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 6:15.

Bennett, N. J., M. Kaplan-Hallam, G. Augustine, N. Ban, D. Belhabib, I. Brueckner-

Irwin, A. Charles, J. Couture, S. Eger, and L. Fanning. 2018. Coastal and

Indigenous community access to marine resources and the ocean: A policy

imperative for Canada. Marine Policy 87:186–193.

Berkström, C., M. Gullström, R. Lindborg, A. Mwandya, S. Yahya, N. Kautsky, and M.

Nyström. 2012. Exploring ‘knowns’ and ‘unknowns’ in tropical seascape

connectivity with insights from East African coral reefs. Estuarine. Coastal and

Shelf Science 107:1–21.

Bigney Wilner, K., M. Wiber, A. Charles, J. Kearney, M. Landry, and L. Wilson. 2012.

Transformative learning for better resource management: the role of critical

reflection. Journal of Environmental Management Planning 55:1–17.

Bonney, R., C. Cooper, J. Dickinson, S. Kelling, T. Phillips, K. Rosenberg, and J. Shirk.

2009. Citizen Science: A new paradigm for increasing science knowledge and

scientific literacy. Biological Sciences 59:977–984.

Boudreau, S. A., and B. Worm. 2010. Top-down control of lobster in the Gulf of Maine:

insights from local ecological knowledge and research surveys. Marine Ecology

Progress Series 403:181–191.

Bowron, T., N. Neatt, J. Graham, D. Proosdij, J. Lundholm, and B. Lemieux. 2015. Post-

Restoration Monitoring (Year 5) of the Cogmagun River Salt Marsh Restoration

Project. Report Prepared for Nova Scotia Department of Transportation and

Infrastructure Renewal. CBWES Inc. Publication No.21. Halifax, NS

Brattland, C. 2013. Proving Fishers Right: Effects of the Integration of Experience-Based

Knowledge in Ecosystem-Based Management. Acta Borealia 30(1):39–59.

Brooks, L. and C. Brooks. 2010. The reciprocity principle and traditional ecological

knowledge. International Journal of Critical Indigenous Studies 3(2):11–28.

Brown, T. 2017. Reconciling Indigenous governance in marine spaces: Mi’kmaq

engagement in tidal energy in the Bay of Fundy, Nova Scotia. Master's thesis,

Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia. 60 pp.

Bryhn, A. C., K. Lundström, A. Johansson, H. Ragnarsson Stabo, and H. Svedäng. 2016.

A continuous involvement of stakeholders promotes the ecosystem approach to

fisheries in the 8-fjords area on the Swedish west coast. ICES Journal of Marine

Science 74(1):431–442.

Bundy, A., and A. Davis. 2013. Knowing in context: an exploration of the interface of

marine harvesters’ local ecological knowledge with ecosystem approaches to

management. Marine Policy 38:277–286.

Buytaert, W., Z. Zulkafli, S. Grainger, L. Acosta, T. C. Alemie, J. Bastiaensen, B. De

Bièvre, J. Bhusal, J. Clark, A. Dewulf, M. Foggin, D. M. Hannah, C. Hergarten,

A. Isaeva, T. Karpouzoglou, B. Pandeya, D. Paudel, K. Sharma, T. Steenhuis, S.

Tilahun, G. Van Hecken, and M. Zhumanova. 2014. Citizen science in hydrology

and water resources: opportunities for knowledge generation, ecosystem service

management, and sustainable development. Frontiers in Earth Science 2:26.

Cairns, D.K. 2001. An evaluation of possible causes of the decline in pre-fishery

abundance of North American Atlantic salmon. Canadian Technical Report

Fishery Aquatic Science No. 2358 12pp.

Carlson, T., and A. Cohen. 2018. Linking community-based monitoring to water policy:

Perceptions of citizen scientists. Journal of Environmental Management 219:168–

177.

Carruthers, E. H., and B. Neis. 2011. Bycatch mitigation in context: using qualitative

interview data to improve assessment and mitigation in a data-rich fishery.

Biological Conservation 144(9):2289–2299.

Carter, B., and E. Nielsen. 2011. Exploring ecological changes in Cook Inlet beluga

whale habitat though traditional and local ecological knowledge of contributing

factors for population decline. Marine Policy 35(1):299–308.

Charles, A. T. 1998. Living with uncertainty in fisheries: analytical methods,

management priorities and the Canadian ground fishery experience. Fisheries

Research 37(1):37–50.

Charles, A., Westlund, L., Bartley, D. M., Fletcher, W. J., Garcia, S.,Govan, H., and

Sanders, J. 2016. Fishing livelihoods as key to marine protected areas: insights

from the World Parks Congress. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater

Ecosystems 26:165–184

Charnley, S., C. Carothers, T. Satterfield, A. Levine, M. Poe, K. Norman, J. Donatuto, S.

Breslow, M. Mascia, P. Levin, X. Basurto, C. Hicks, C. Garcia-Quijano, and K. St

Martin. 2017. Evaluating the best available social science for natural resource

management decision-making. Environmental Science and Policy 73:80–88.

Chhotray, S. 2010. An assessment of the perceptions, level of involvement, and needs of

user-groups for Marine Protected Areas in the Carolinas. Unpublished masters

thesis, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina. 18 pp.

Cogswell, A. T., E. Kenchington, C. G. Lirette, K. Macisaac, M. M. Best, L. Beazley,

and J. Vickers. 2009. The current state of knowledge concerning the distribution

of coral in the Maritime Provinces. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and

Aquatic Sciences 2855: 66 pp.

Coll, M, and H.K. Lotze. 2016. Ecological indicators and food-web models as tools to

study historical changes in marine ecosystems. Perspectives on Oceans Past. 103-

132.

Collins, Catherine. Integrating local ecological knowledge into fisheries planning and

management: another context for knowledge management research? 2013.

Proceedings of the Annual Conference of CAIS/Actes du congrès annuel de

l'ACSI. 9pp.

COSEWIC (2016). Incorporating Community Knowledge Into COSEWIC Assessment

Process https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-

change/services/committee-status-endangered-wildlife/community-knowledge-

assessment-process.html

Cosham, J. A., K. F. Beazley, and C. McCarthy. 2016. Local knowledge of distribution of

European green crab (Carcinus maenas) in southern Nova Scotian coastal waters.

Human Ecology 44(4):409–424.

Côté, C., S. Pavey, Stacey, T. Pratt, M. Castonguay, C. Audet, and L. Bernatchez. 2015.

Growth, female size, and sex ratio variability in American eel of different origins

in both controlled conditions and the wild: implications for stocking programs.

Transactions Of The American Fisheries Society 144:246–257.

Crone, P. R., K. T. Hill, J. D. McDaniel, and N. C. H. Lo. 2009. Pacific mackerel

(Scomber japonicus) stock assessment for USA management in the 2009-10

fishing year. Pacific Fishery Management Council.197 pp.

Crozier, L., and J. Hutchings. 2014. Plastic and evolutionary responses to climate change

in fish. Evolutionary applications 7(1):68–87.

Cullis-Suzuki, S., S. Wyllie-Echeverria, K. Adam Dick, D. Sewid-Smith, K. Recalma-

Clutesi, and N. Turner. 2015. Tending the meadows of the sea: a disturbance

experiment based on traditional indigenous harvesting of Zostera marina in the

Southern region of Canada’s west coast. Aquatic Botany 127:26–34.

Daborn, G.R. and M. Brylinsky. 2004. Fish population studies of the Avon estuary,

Pesaquid Lake and lower Avon River 2003. Report prepared for Nova Scotia

Department of Transportation. Acadia Centre for Estuarine Research Publication

No. 76. 153 pp.

Daborn, G.R.; van Proosdij, D. and M. Brylinsky. 2003. Environmental implications of

expanding the Windsor causeway (part one). Report prepared for Nova Scotia.

Acadia Centre for Estuarine Research Publication No. 72. 15 pp.

Darabant, A., P. B. Rai, C. L. Staudhammer, and T. Dorji. 2016. Designing and

evaluating bamboo harvesting methods for local needs: integrating local

ecological knowledge and science. Environmental Management 58(2):312–322.

Davis, A., and J. R. Wagner. 2003. Who knows? On the importance of identifying

“experts” when researching local ecological knowledge. Human Ecology

31(3):463–489.

Davis, A., and K. Ruddle. 2010. Constructing confidence: rational skepticism and

systematic enquiry in local ecological knowledge research. Ecological

Applications 20(3):880–894.

Davis, A., J. M. Hanson, H. Watts, and H. MacPherson. 2004. Local ecological

knowledge and marine fisheries research: the case of White Hake (Urophycis

tenuis) predation on juvenile American lobster (Homarus americanus). Canadian

Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 61(7):1191–1201.

Dawe, J., and D. Schneider. 2014. Consilient knowledge in fisheries: a case study of three

species of Wolffish (Anarhichadidae) listed under the Canadian Species at Risk

Act. Ecology and Society 19(3):26.

DeCelles, G. R., D. Martins, D. R. Zemeckis, and S. X. Cadrin. 2017. Using fishermen’s

ecological knowledge to map Atlantic cod spawning grounds on Georges Bank.

ICES Journal of Marine Science 74(6):1587–1601.

DFO 2011. Ecological and human use information for twenty areas on the Atlantic coast

of Nova Scotia in support of conservation planning. Technical Report of Fisheries

and Aquatic Sciences 2880:73 pp.

DFO 2014. Guidance on Assessing Threats, Ecological Risk and Ecological Impacts for

Species at Risk. DFO Canadian Scientific Advisory Rep. 2014/013. (Erratum:

June 2016)

Dorey, K., and T. R. Walker. 2018. Limitations of threatened species lists in Canada: A

federal and provincial perspective. Biological Conservation 217:259–268.

Dubé, M. G., P. Duinker, L. Greig, M. Carver, M. Servos, M. McMaster, B. Noble, H.

Schreier, L. Jackson, and K. R. Munkittrick. 2013. A framework for assessing

cumulative effects in watersheds: An introduction to Canadian case studies.

Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 9(3):363–369.

Duplisea, D. E. 2017. Eliminating implausible fisheries assessment models using fishers’

knowledge. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 75(8):1280–

1290.

Eddy, T. D., H. K. Lotze, E. A. Fulton, M. Coll, C. H. Ainsworth, J. N. Araújo, C. M.

Bulman, A. Bundy, V. Christensen, and J. C. Field. 2017. Ecosystem effects of

invertebrate fisheries. Fish and Fisheries 18(1):40–53.

Eddy, T. D., J. N. Araújo, A. Bundy, E. A. Fulton, H. K. Lotze, and H. editor: M. Kaiser.

2016. Effectiveness of lobster fisheries management in New Zealand and Nova

Scotia from multi-species and ecosystem perspectives. ICES Journal of Marine

Science 74(1):146–157.

Edgar, G. J., A. Bates, T. Bird, A. Jones, S. Kininmonth, R. Stuart‐Smith, and T. Webb.

2016. New approaches to marine conservation through the scaling up of

ecological data. Annual Review of Marine Science 8:435–461.

Elmer, L. K., L. A. Kelly, S. Rivest, S. C. Steell, W. M. Twardek, A. J. Danylchuk, R.

Arlinghaus, J. R. Bennett, and S. J. Cooke. 2017. Angling into the future: Ten

Commandments for recreational fisheries science, management, and stewardship

in a good Anthropocene. Environmental management 60(2):165–175.

Eriksen, S., and P. M. Kelly. 2007. Developing credible vulnerability indicators for

climate adaptation policy assessment: mitigation and adaptation strategies for

global change 12(1):495–524.

Erikson, E., Hansen, T.R. and Lykke-Olesen, A., 2007. Reclaiming Public Space. In

Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Tangible and Embedded

Interaction.

Espinoza Tenorio, A., G. Montaño-Moctezuma, and I. Espejel. 2010. Ecosystem-based

analysis of a marine protected area where fisheries and protected species coexist.

Environmental management 45(1):739–750.

Eythorsson, E., and A. E. Thuestad. 2015. Incorporating traditional knowledge in

environmental impact assessment – how can it be done? Arctic Review 6(2):132–

150.

Felt, L. F. 1994. Two tales of a fish: The social construction of indigenous knowledge

among Atlantic Canadian salmon fishers. Folk Management in the World’s

Fisheries: Lessons for Modern Fisheries Management:251–286.

Filbee-dexter, K., C. Symons, K. Jones, H. Haig, J. Pittman, S. Alexander, and M. Burke.

2018. Quantifying ecological and social drivers of ecological surprise. Journal of

Applied Ecology 55: 2135–2146.

Garbary, D., and B. Taylor. 2007. Flowering during January in Antigonish County, Nova

Scotia. Canadian Field-Naturalist. 121pp.

Garbary, D., J. Ferrier, and B. Taylor. 2011. Late blooming of plants from northern Nova

Scotia: responses to a mild fall and winter. Proceedings of the Nova Scotian

Institute of Science 46(1):149–174.

Giles, A., L. Fanning, S. Denny, and T. Paul. 2016. Improving the American eel fishery

through the incorporation of indigenous knowledge into policy level decision

making in Canada. Human Ecology 44(2):167–183.

Głazaczow, A., D. Orwin, and M. Bogdziewicz. 2016. Increased temperature delays the

late-season phenology of multivoltine insect. Scientific Reports. 6 pp.

Hallwass, G., P. Lopes, A. Juras, and R. Silvano. 2013. Fishers’ knowledge identifies

environmental changes and fish abundance trends in impounded tropical rivers.

Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America

23:392–407.

Hamley, J.M., and T. P. Howley. 2011. Factors affecting variability of trapnet catches.

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 42:1079–1087.

Heinrich, D. F. Ecological knowledge within qallunaat scientific enquiry 106. Master's

thesis. McGill University, Quebec 45 56– 106 pp.

Hind-Ozan, E. 2014. A review of the past, the present, and the future of fishers’

knowledge research: A challenge to established fisheries science. ICES Journal of

Marine Science 72:341–358.

Hoffman, R., and Dunham, J., 2007. Fish movement ecology in high gradient headwater

streams: its relevance to fish passage restoration through stream culvert barriers:

U.S. Geological Survey, OFR 2007- 1140, pp. 40.

Hohausova, E., G. Copp, and P. Jankovský. 2003. Movement of fish between a river and

its backwater: Diel activity and relation to environmental gradients. Ecology of

Freshwater Fish 12:107–117.

Holm, P., and Soma, K. 2016. Fisher’s information in governance—a matter of trust.

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 18: 115–121.

Holm, P., Hadjimichael, M., and Mackinson, S. 2016. Collaborative research in fisheries:

co-creating knowledge for fisheries governance in Europe. In Preparation for

MARE Publication Series. Springer, Dordrecht.

Hsieh, C., H. Jin Kim, W. Watson, E. Di Lorenzo, and G. Sugihara. 2009. Climate‐driven

changes in abundance and distribution of larvae of oceanic fishes in the southern

California region. Global Change Biology 15:2137–2152.

Huntington, H.P. 2005. “We dance around in a ring and suppose”: Academic engagement

with traditional knowledge. Arctic anthropology 42:29–32.

Huntington, H.P. 2000. Using traditional ecological knowledge in science: methods and

applications. Ecological Applications 10:1270–1274.

Isaac, N. J., Strien, A. J., August, T. A., Zeeuw, M. P. and Roy, D. B. 2014. Statistics for

citizen science: extracting signals of change from noisy ecological data. Methods

in Ecology and Evolution 5: 1052-1060

Isaacman, L.A. 2005. Historic examination of the changes in diadromous fish populations

and potential anthropogenic stressors in the Avon River watershed, Nova Scotia.

Unpublished Master’s thesis, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia 122 pp.

Gibson, J.A. and R.A. Myers. 2003. A meta-analysis of the habitat carrying capacity and

maximum reproductive rate of anadromous Alewife in Eastern North America.

American Fisheries Society Symposium 35:211–221.

Jessop, B. 1990. Stock-recruitment relationships of Alewives and Blueback Herring

returning to the Mactaquac Dam, Saint John River, New Brunswick. North

American Journal of Fisheries Management 10:19–32.

Killacky, M. 2018. Aspects of American Eel, Anguilla rostrata, in the Avon estuary:

movement patterns, otoliths, and eel demographics. Unpublished biology honours

thesis, Acadia University, Wolfville, Nova Scotia

Kim, E.-J., A. Asghar, and S. Jordan. 2017. A critical review of traditional ecological

knowledge (TEK) in science education. Canadian Journal of Science,

Mathematics and Technology Education 17:258–270.

King, M., N. Shackell, M. Greenlaw, K. Allard, H. Moors-Murphy, and D. Fenton. 2013.

Marine protected area network planning in the Scotian shelf bioregion: offshore

data considerations. DFO Canadian Scientific Advisory Resource Doc. 2013 (24).

Koopman, H. N., A. J. Westgate, and Z. A. Siders. 2014. Declining fecundity and factors

affecting embryo quality in the American lobster (Homarus americanus) from the

Bay of Fundy. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 72(3):352–

363.

Kost, R.A., and R. Brook. 2018. Evaluating cost-effective methods for rapid and

repeatable national scale detection and mapping of invasive species spread.

Scientific Reports 9:7254.

Kouril, D., C. Furgal, and T. Whillans. 2015. Trends and key elements in community-

based monitoring: A systematic review of the literature with an emphasis on

Arctic and Subarctic regions. Environmental Reviews 24(2):151–163.

Kovach, A., T. Breton, D. Berlinsky, L. Maceda, and I. Wirgin. 2010. Fine-scale spatial

and temporal genetic structure of Atlantic cod off the Atlantic coast of the USA.

Marine Ecology-progress Series – Maritime Ecological Progress Series 410:177–

195.

Kraan, M., Uhlmann, S., Steenbergen, J., Van Helmond, A. T. M., and Van Hoof, L.

2013. The optimal process of self-sampling in fisheries: lessons learned in the

Netherlands. Journal of Fish Biology, 83:963–973.

Kwiatkowski, R.E. 2011. Indigenous community based participatory research and health

impact assessment: A Canadian example. Environmental Impact Assessment

Review 31:445–450.

Laidler, G. J., Hirose, T., Kapfer, M. , Ikummaq, T. , Joamie, E. and Elee, P. 2011.

Evaluating the Floe Edge Service: how well can SAR imagery address Inuit

community concerns around sea ice change and travel safety?. The Canadian

Geographer / Le Géographe canadien, 55: 91-107.

Lauer, M., and S. Aswani Canela. 2010. Indigenous Knowledge and Long-term

Ecological Change: Detection, Interpretation, and Responses to Changing

Ecological Conditions in Pacific Island Communities. Environmental

management 45:985–97.

Long, R. D., Charles, A., and Stephenson, R. L. 2015. Key principles of marine

ecosystem-based management. Marine Policy, 57: 53–60.

Lynam, T., W. de Jong, D. Sheil, T. Kusumanto, and K. Evans. 2006. A review of tools

for incorporating community knowledge, preferences, and values into decision

making in natural resources management. Ecology and Society 12.

Lynch, H., E. Grant, R. Muneepeerakul, M. Arunachalam, I. Rodriguez-Iturbe, and W. F.

Fagan. 2011. How restructuring river connectivity changes freshwater fish

biodiversity and biogeography. Water Resources Research 47(5):W05531

MacIntosh, J. 2013. The tragedy of the independent: public policy and traditional

recruitment in Nova Scotia’s small boat fishery. Master's thesis, Dalhousie

University, Halifax Nova Scotia. 121 pp.

Mackinson, S., and L. Nottestad. 1998. Points of view: combining local and scientific

knowledge. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 8(4):481–490.

Maes F, Coppens J, Vanhulle, B. 2012. A. LECOFISH: an ecosystem approach in

sustainable fisheries management through local ecological knowledge. Bruges,

Belgium 9 pp.

Maillet, D. G. C., M. G. Wiber, and A. Barnett. 2017. Actions towards the joint

production of knowledge: the risk of salmon aquaculture on American Lobster.

Journal of Risk Research 22(1):67–80.

Manjarrés-Martínez, L., J. Estrada, J. Mazenet-González, and M. Soriguer. 2010.

Seasonal patterns of three fish species in a Caribbean coastal gill-net fishery:

Biologically induced or climate-related aggregations? Fisheries Research –

Fishery Resources 106:358–367.

Martin, K. S., B. J. McCay, G. D. Murray, T. R. Johnson, and B. Oles. 2007.

Communities, knowledge and fisheries of the future. International Journal of

Global Environmental Issues 7(2–3):221–239.

Marty Holtgren, J., and N. Auer. 2016. Re-envisioning state and tribal collaboration in

fishery assessment and restoration. Fisheries 41:244–257.

Mccann, K., L. W Botsford, and A. Hasting. 2011. Differential response of marine

populations to climate forcing. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic

Sciences 60:971–985.

Mccleave, J., and E. Edeline. 2009. Diadromy as a conditional strategy: patterns and

drivers of eel movements in continental habitats. American Fisheries Society

Symposium 69.

Meixler, M., M. B. Bain, and M. Walter. 2009. Predicting barrier passage and habitat

suitability for migratory fish species. Ecological Modeling 220:2782–2791.

Murphy, B.L. 2011. From interdisciplinary to inter‐epistemological approaches:

Confronting the challenges of integrated climate change research. The Canadian

Geographer / Le Géographe Canadien 55:490–509.

Murray, G., B. Neis, C. Palmer, and D. Schneider. 2008. Mapping cod: fisheries science,

fish harvesters’ ecological knowledge and cod migrations in the Northern Gulf of

St. Lawrence. Human Ecology 36:581–598.

Neckles, H.A., M. Dionne, D.M. Burdick, C.T. Roman, R. Buchsbaum, and E. Hutchins.

2002. A monitoring protocol to assess tidal restoration of salt marshes on local

and regional scales. Restoration Ecology, 10(3): 556 – 563.

Noble, M., P. Duncan, D. Perry, K. Prosper, D. Rose, S. Schnierer, G. Tipa, E. Williams,

R. Woods, and J. Pittock. 2016. Culturally significant fisheries: Keystones for

management of freshwater social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 21:22.

Nursey-Bray, M., J. Vince, M. Scott, M. Haward, K. O’Toole, T. Smith, N. Harvey, and

B. Clarke. 2013. Science into policy? Discourse, coastal management and

knowledge. Environmental Science and Policy 38:107–119.

O’Halloran, L. 2018. The political ecology of the Canso causeway: development, marine

harvesting, and competing notions of progress: Master's thesis, Dalhousie

University. 83 pp.

Olmstead, S.M. and Sigman, H., 2015. Damming the commons: An empirical

analysis of international cooperation and conflict in dam location. Journal of the

Association of Environmental and Resource Economists 2(4):497-526

Paterson, B., B. Neis, and R. Stephenson. 2017. A social–ecological study of stock

structure and fleet dynamics in the Newfoundland herring fishery. ICES Journal

of Marine Science 75:257–269.

Petrasek MacDonald, J., A. Cunsolo Willox, J. D. Ford, I. Shiwak, and M. Wood. 2015.

Protective factors for mental health and well-being in a changing climate:

Perspectives from Inuit youth in Nunatsiavut, Labrador. Social Science &

Medicine 141:133–141.

Pilz, S., K.I. Thornton, and H. Bülthoff. 2006. A search advantage for faces learned in

motion. Experimental Brain Research.171(1):436–47.

Pitcher, T., and M. Lam. 2010. Fishful thinking: rhetoric, reality, and the sea before us.

Ecology and Society 15(2):12.

Pocock M.J.O., Newson SE, Henderson I.G., Peyton J., Sutherland W.J., Noble D.G.,

Ball S.G., Beckmann B.C., Biggs J., Brereton T., Bullock D.J., Buckland S.T.,

Edwards M., Eaton M.A., Harvey M.C., Hill M.O., Horlock M., Hubble D.S.,

Julian A.M., Mackey E.C., Mann D.J., Marshall M.J., Medlock J.M., O’Mahony

E.M., Pacheco M., Porter K., Prentice S., Procter D.A., Roy H.E., Southway S.E.,

Shortall C.R., Stewart A.J.A., Wembridge D.E., Wright M.A., Roy D.B.. 2014a.

Developing and enhancing biodiversity monitoring programs: a collaborative

assessment of priorities. Journal of Applied Ecology. 52(3):686-695

Pocock M.J.O., H.E. Roy, C.D. Preston, D.B. Roy. 2014b. The Biological Records

Centre: a pioneer of citizen science. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society

115:475–493.

Pratihast, A., B. DeVries, V. Avitabile, S. de Bruin, L. Kooistra, M. Tekle, and M.

Herold. 2014. Combining satellite data and community-based observations for

forest monitoring. Forests (5):2464–2489.

Pratihast, A.K., Herold, M.,Sy, V.D.; Murdisyarso, D.; Skutsch, M. 2013. Linking

community-based and national REDD+ monitoring: A review of the potential.

Carbon Management 4(1):91-104

Rajamani, L., and H. Marsh. 2010. Using parallel regional-and local-scale initiatives to

inform conservation management of rare wildlife: A case study of the Dugong in

Sabah, Malaysia. Endangered Species Research 13:17–23.

Robinet, T., M. Sbaihi, S. Guyet, B. Mounaix, S. Dufour, and E. Feunteun. 2003.

Advanced sexual maturation before marine migration of Anguilla bicolor and

Anguilla marmorata at Réunion Island. Journal of Fish Biology 63:538–542.

Robinson, K., M. J. Tetley, and E. Mitchelson-Jacob. 2009. The distribution and habitat

preference of coastally occurring Minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) in

the outer southern Moray Firth, Northeast Scotland. Journal of Coastal

Conservation 13:39–48.

Rochette, R., B. Sainte-Marie, M. Allain, J. Baker, L. Bernatchez, V. Boudreau, M.

Comeau, J. Cote, G. Miron, L. Ramsay, K. Squires, and M. Tremblay. 2017. The

Lobster Node of the CFRN: Co-constructed and collaborative research on

productivity, stock structure and connectivity in the American lobster (Homarus

americanus). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 75(5):813–824.

Rose, D., D. Bell, and D. Crook. 2016. Restoring habitat and cultural practice in

Australia’s oldest and largest traditional aquaculture system. Reviews in Fish

Biology and Fisheries 26(3):589–600.

Ruddle, K., and A. Davis. 2011. What is “ecological” in local ecological knowledge?

Lessons from Canada and Vietnam. Society and Natural Resources 24(9):887–

901.

Ruddle, K., and A. Davis. 2013. Local ecological knowledge (LEK) in interdisciplinary

research and application: a critical review. Asian Fisheries Science 26(1):79–100.

Rulifson, R.A. 1995. Life history and population characteristics of striped bass in Atlantic

Canada. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 124:477–507.

Santillo, D., C. Dorey, and M. Allsopp.2013. Sustainability in aquaculture: present

problems and sustainable solutions. Ocean Yearbook Online 27(1):291–322.

Shirk, J., H. Ballard, C. Wilderman, T. Phillips, A. Wiggins, R. Jordan, E. McCallie, M.

Minarchek, B. Lewenstein, M. Krasny, and R. Bonney. 2012. Public participation

in scientific research: a framework for deliberate design. Ecology and Society

17(1):29–48.

Shirk, J., H. Ballard, C. Wilderman, T. Phillips, A. Wiggins, R. Jordan, E. McCallie, M.

Minarchek, B. Lewenstein, M. Krasny, and R. Bonney. 2012. Public participation

in scientific research: a framework for deliberate design. Ecology and Society

17:29–48.

Silvano, R., P. Lopes, R. V. Lima, and A. Begossi. 2006. When does this fish spawn?

Fishermen’s local knowledge of migration and reproduction of Brazilian coastal

fishes. Environmental Biology of Fishes 76:371–386.

Stange, K., van Tatenhove, J., and van Leeuwen, J. 2014. Stakeholder-led knowledge

production: development of a long-term management plan for North Sea

Nephrops fisheries. Science and Public Policy 42: 501–513

Stephenson, R. L., S. Paul, M. A. Pastoors, M. Kraan, P. Holm, M. Wiber, S. Mackinson,

D. J. Dankel, K. Brooks, and A. Benson. 2016. Integrating fishers’ knowledge

research in science and management. ICES Journal of Marine Science

73(6):1459–1465.

Stojanovic, T., D. Green, and G. Lymbery. 2010. Approaches to knowledge sharing and

capacity building: The role of local information systems in marine and coastal

management. Ocean and Coastal Management 53(1):805–815.

Stortini, C.H. 2015. A description of the habitats and special natural features within the

Scotian slope ecologically and biologically significant area in the Maritimes

region. Canadian Technical Report Fishery Aquatic Sciences. 3136: 53pp.

Szuster, B., and A. Hatim. 2010. Mariculture and marine spatial planning: integrating

local ecological knowledge at Kaledupa Island, Indonesia. Island Studies Journal

5(2):237–250.

Taylor, B., and D. Garbary. 2003. Late-flowering plants from northern Nova Scotia,

Canada. Rhodora 105pp.

Tengö, M., E. Brondízio, T. Elmqvist, P. Malmer, and M. Spierenburg. 2014. Connecting

diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: the multiple

evidence base approach. AMBIO A Journal of the Human Environment 43: 579

Thiel, M., M. Penna-Díaz, G. Luna-Jorquera, S. Salas, J. Sellanes, and W. Stotz. 2014.

Citizen scientists and marine research: volunteer participants, their contributions,

and projection for the future. Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual

Review 52(1):257–314.

Thornton, T., and A. Maciejewski Scheer. 2012. Collaborative engagement of local and

traditional knowledge and science in marine environments: a review. Ecology and

Society 17 (3): 8 pp. van Proosdij, D., and G. Baker. 2007. Intertidal morphodynamics of the Avon river

estuary. Final report submitted to Nova Scotia Department of Transportation and

Public Works, 186pp. van Proosdij, D., Daborn., G.R. and M. Brylinsky. 2004. Environmental implications of

expanding the Windsor causeway (part two): comparison of 4 and 6 lane options.

Report prepared for Nova Scotia department of transport. Acadia Centre for

Estuarine Research publication No. 75. 17 pp. van Proosdij, D., Daborn., G.R. and M. Brylinsky. 2004. Environmental implications of

expanding the Windsor causeway (part two): comparison of 4 and 6 lane options.

Report prepared for Nova Scotia Department of Transport. Acadia Centre for

Estuarine Research Publication No. 75. 17 pp. van Proosdij, D., J. Ollerhead, and R. Davidson-Arnott. 2006. Seasonal and annual

variations in the volumetric sediment balance of a macro-tidal salt marsh. Marine

Geology 225:103–127.

Vayda, A.P., 2006. Causal explanation of Indonesian Forest fires: concepts, applications,

and research priorities. Human Ecology 34(1):615–635.

Wagner, K., 2011. Linking people to places: evaluating the methodology of collecting

human-use data from conservation and protection officers for coastal marine

protected area planning in Nova Scotia. Halifax, NS: Dalhousie University. 81 pp.

Wang, J., Yingting Yang, FengYang, Y. Li, L. Li, D. Lin, T. He, B. Liang, T. Zhang, Y.

Lin, P. Li, and W. Liu. 2016. A framework for the assessment of the spatial and

temporal patterns of threatened coastal delphinids. Scientific Reports 6:19883.

Weller, S. C. 2007. Cultural consensus theory: applications and frequently asked

questions. Field Methods 19:339-368

Wells, Peter G. 1999. Environmental impact of barriers on rivers entering the Bay of

Fundy: report of an ad hoc environment Canada working group. Technical Report

Series No. 334, Canadian Wildlife Service 43 pp.

Wiber, M. G., S. Young, and L. Wilson. 2012. Impact of aquaculture on commercial

fisheries: fishermen’s local ecological knowledge. Human Ecology 40(1):29–40.

Williams, R. R. G., G. Daborn, and B. Jessop. 1984. Spawning of the striped bass

(Morone saxatilis) in the Annapolis River, Nova Scotia. Proceedings of the Nova

Scotian Institute of Science 34:15–23.

Zurba, Melanie.2009. Bringing local synthesis into governance and management systems:

The Girringun TUMRA case in Northern Queensland, Australia. Journal of the

Royal Society of New Zealand 39(4):179-182

Appendix I

Fish Movement and Tidal Barrier Survey

Aging tidal barriers across the Minas Basin need repair or replacement offering an opportunity to increase fish passage. To inform barrier design, essential information is required on which species are currently in a watershed and the timing of arrival and departures (fish runs) for each. Furthermore, while large tidal barriers (such as gate systems or fishways) are known, smaller structures or impediments to fish passage are often unknown. Seeking knowledge from local residents is an important step to filling knowledge gaps. The information gathered here will be used to assist developing protocols for incorporating local ecological knowledge to inform tidal river management efforts for future projects.

Fish Movement and Tidal Barrier Questionnaire

Consent Form

You are invited to participate in a questionnaire on tidal barriers. This questionnaire will take approximately 20 minutes to complete. You are under no obligation to complete all questions, and are free to withdraw from participating at any time by not submitting the questionnaire form or clicking the ‘submit’ button online. Once submitted, because the questionnaire is anonymous, there is no feasible way to withdraw your responses. The only responsibility of participants is to answer the survey honestly and to the best of their ability.

With this questionnaire we seek to learn more about resident fish populations, their movements in the waterway and the impact of tidal barriers on their movement. The objective of this questionnaire is to get a better understanding of what fish are present and when, and to identify any tidal barriers (large and small) within the watershed. Benefits of this research are to increase and improve the collective knowledge of barriers to fish movements in the Maritimes.

This information will be compiled and presented in various outlets such as websites, blogs, scientific presentations, research reports and theses, and research articles. Responses will be summarized.

Participation does not waive any rights to legal recourse in the event of research-related harm caused by this questionnaire. Funding is provided by Acadia University.

Questionnaire Contacts For questions on the research program: For questions on the ethics of this research:

Dr. Trevor Avery, Dr. Stephen Maitzen, Biology Department, Acadia University, Acadia Research Ethics Board Chair, Acadia University 33 Westwood Ave, Wolfville, NS, B4P 2R6 [email protected], 1-902-585-1407 [email protected], 1-902-585- 1873

Questionnaire

Target Waterway Please indicate what river system you are completing this survey on and the nearest community. ______

Demographic Age: ______years Gender (circle one) Male / Female / Non-Binary Postal code ______Occupation ______

Waterway Use

1. Please indicate how long you have been familiar with the waterway in years.

____ Years

2. Please indicate your primary use of the waterway. a) Recreational fishing b) Commercial fishing c) Water source (agricultural, residential, commercial etc.) d) Recreational activity (boating, swimming, wildlife observing, etc.) e) Other Activity. ______

Please describe your use of the waterway:

3. What best describes your level of use of the waterway on average? a) Daily/near daily use* b) Seasonal use* c) Occasional use (less than 10 times per year) d) Rarely used e) Do not use

* Please describe the type of use if seasonal and/or daily e.g. seasonal use for boating, weekly use for angling, daily use for commercial fishing, etc.) ______

4. What best describes your interest in access to the waterway and/or use of it? a) Academic b) Educational c) Commercial (fishing, guiding, etc.) d) Recreational e) Governmental and/or municipal oversight or management f) Water source (agricultural, residential, commercial etc.) g) Other please describe: ______

5. Do you fish (commercial or recreational) on this waterway? Yes / No If yes, select the type of fishing. a) Commercial b) Recreational If yes, please indicate each month you typically fish at least one day in a season.

Check all that apply Month January February March April May June July August September October November December

Environmental and Economic Understandings

6. What is your understanding of the positive impacts of tidal barriers?

7. What is your understanding of the negative impacts of tidal barriers?

8. What is your understanding of the positive or neutral impacts of tidal barriers to the ecosystem (i.e. the watershed or river system)?

9. Do you feel there has been and currently is sufficient information on the operation, functionality and/or maintenance of tidal barrier(s) in the waterway? Please comment on the degree to which you feel you’ve been informed and whether your input has been incorporated in decision making.

Fish and Fish Migrations 10. What is your level of knowledge of fish and seasonal movement of fish in the waterway? a) High b) Moderate c) Little d) None

11. What fish species do you know to be in the waterway? Comment on how is this information known to you?

(Provide the historical context for this information by providing the period it represents. For example, the past five years, 25 years ago, 1970-1975, etc..)

12. Have you observed or do you know of any new species (fish or otherwise) in the waterway?

Yes / No

If yes, please describe when you first noted their presence or their presence was first reported to you.

(Provide the historical context for this information by providing the period it represents. For example, the past five years, 25 years ago, 1970-1975, etc..)

13. Have you observed or do you know of any changes in the abundance of fish of any fish species in the waterway?

Yes / No

If yes, Please describe what species and the relative change (For example: increase or decrease)

14. Do you associate the timing of migrating fish runs or changes in fish abundance of any fish species with any of the following seasonal occurrences? Please describe.

 Emergence or appearance of insects

 Blossoming or flowering of plants or trees

 The arrival or departure of birds or other animals

 Other (for example: baling of hay, planting of fields, daily temperature, water temperature, moon cycle etc.)

 I do not associate fish with environmental occurrences.

15. Do you know of any other kind of seasonal indicator that tells you what fish are present and or for how long?

Tidal Barriers and Habitat Access

16. What is your understanding of the habitat access for resident fish populations? a) Very suitable b) Somewhat suitable c) Not suitable d) No comment e) No basis for form an answer

Please describe:

17. What is your understanding of the habitat access for migratory fish populations? a) Very suitable b) Somewhat suitable c) Not suitable d) No comment e) No basis to form an answer

Please describe:

18. Do you know of any tidal barriers (dams, aboiteaux, sluice gates, weirs etc.) that may prevent fish movements to resident or migrating fish species?

Yes / No If Yes, please indicate roughly where each is located or describe its location within the waterway. Use roadways, crossings, bridges, culverts, GPS coordinates, etc. to help describe your answer.

19. Do you feel management of the waterway in terms of fish passage and providing fish access to fish habitat is adequate to maintain fish at healthy population levels?

Yes / No

If No, please provide comments on what you think could be done to improve fish passage and access to fish habitat.

20. Do you feel you have knowledge related to the ecologic and/or biologic conditions and requirements of the river to maintain fish at healthy population levels or to restore fish to healthy population levels? a) Yes b) No c) Not sure

Please explain your answer:

21. Please provide any other comments about fish, fish movement, or fish population management within this waterway.