DOCSLIB.ORG

Piscicide Use on NF Lands

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Piscicide Use on NF Lands Native Inland Trout Restoration on National Forests in the Western United States: Time for Improvement? The piscicides rotenone and antimycin are integral to successful restoration of native inland trout populations on public lands in the western United States by removing non- native fishes that compete and hybridize with 13 species and subspecies of native trout. introduced fishes The U.S. Forest Service administers the greatest portion of native inland trout habitat on public lands. Piscicide use by state and federal agencies on national forests has become ABSTRACT encumbered by redundant processes, uneven and irregular application of policies and regulations, and overlapping authorities. This has culminated in project delays and can- cellations, placing native trout at continued, if not heightened, extinction risks. We reviewed the status of native trout restoration efforts on national forests in the western United States and considered issues associated with piscicide use. Central to the issue is whether piscicide applications by states require a permit from the Forest Service; those that required a permit usually invoked a redundant, federal environmental review pro- cess that precipitated the project delays. Based upon this review, we recommend that perspective the Forest Service proceed with their proposal for a uniform standard for piscicide use by responsible government agencies on Forest Service administered lands. Doing so would streamline bureaucracy, speed future restoration efforts, and improve the status of imperiled native inland trouts without affecting environmental safeguards. Introduction because USFS was unable to complete NEPA requirements. Cancellation of Brian Finlayson Hilda Sexauer On 22 August 2003, just days before the treatment placed a federally-listed William Somer Tom Nesler a planned chemical treatment to threatened species at continued risk due Dan Duffield Scott Gurtin remove nonnative trout and restore to potential hybridization, and failure to David Propst John Elliot habitat for the federally-listed threat- improve security of the species may war- ened Paiute cutthroat trout rant its federal listing being upgraded to Chad Mellison Fred Partridge (Oncorhynchus clarki seleniris), the endangered. Tom Pettengill Don Skaar Center for Biological Diversity filed a Elsewhere across the western complaint in the U.S. District Court for United States, considerable resources Finlayson is senior environmental scientist and unit the Eastern District of California are devoted to conservation of the 13 leader with the California Department of Fish and against USDA Forest Service (USFS) species and subspecies of native inland Game in Rancho Cordova and can be reached at to block the project. The complaint trouts (Figure 1). Several species and [email protected]. Somer is senior fisheries cited compliance issues with the subspecies, such as bull trout biologist with the California Department of Fish National Environmental Policy Act (Salvelinus confluentus), Gila trout (O. and Game in Rancho Cordova. Duffield is regional (NEPA) and Administrative gilae), and greenback cutthroat trout fish program manager with the Intermountain Procedures Act (APA), challenging the (O. clarki stomias), are listed as Region of the Forest Service in Ogden, Utah. Propst USFS decision to allow California "threatened" or "endangered" by the is nongame and endangered species biologist with Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish in to use rotenone to remove nonnative (USFWS) under the Endangered Santa Fe. Mellison is fish and wildlife biologist with trout from Silver King Creek, Carson- Species Act (ESA). Others are pro- the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Reno, Nevada. tected or receive special management Pettengill is sport fisheries and aquatic education Iceberg Wilderness, Humboldt-Toiyabe attention by states and cooperating programs coordinator with the Utah Division of National Forest, as part of the Paiute federal and tribal agencies (Table 1). Wildlife Resources in Salt Lake City. Sexauer is cutthroat trout habitat restoration pro- regional fisheries supervisor with the Wyoming ject (CDFG 2002). Paiute cutthroat Much of this effort occurs on public Game and Fish Department in Pinedale. Nesler is trout, one of the rarest species of trout in lands and USFS administers a substan- statewide native fishes conservation manager with the world with a historical range of a tial portion of the lands having habitat the Colorado Division of Wildlife in Fort Collins. single drainage, is threatened by capable of supporting trout (Figure 2). Gurtin is native trout conservation coordinator with hybridization with rainbow trout (O. A common and critical element of the Arizona Game and Fish Department in Phoenix. mykiss). Because USFS opted not to native inland trout conservation is Elliott is fisheries biologist with the Nevada challenge the complaint and because of removal of nonnative fishes from Department of Wildlife in Elko. Partridge is resident the narrow window of logistics, water native trout habitats with piscicides. fisheries coordinator with the Idaho Fish and Game temperature, and weather, the project Conflicting directions and policies Department in Boise. Skaar is pollution control was cancelled for the year. Previously, contained in laws, regulations, manuals, biologist with Montana Department of Fish, CDFG had attempted to execute this and agreements affect the use of pisci- Wildlife and Parks in Helena. project in 2002, but was delayed cides in national forests. In California, 10 Fisheries | www.fisheries.org | vol 30 no 5 Figure 1. The 13 species and subspecies of the western United States inland native trouts (illustrations credit Joseph Tomelleri). Colorado River cutthroat trout Apache trout Paiute cutthroat trout Gila trout Bonneville cutthroat trout Rio Grande cutthroat trout Greenback cutthroat trout Bull trout Westslope cutthroat trout Lahontan cutthroat trout California golden trout Yellowstone cutthroat trout Little Kern golden trout Figure 2. Distribution of 13 species and subspecies of native trouts (Oncorhynchus) and char (Salvelinus) of the western United States (adapted from Benke 1992). May 2005 | www.fisheries.org | Fisheries 11 the legal challenge to the rotenone treatment arose western national forests that compromises conserva- from changes in USFS NEPA compliance strategy for tion and recovery of all native inland trout. The the Paiute cutthroat trout restoration project. objectives of this article are to investigate the causes Unfortunately, confusion over NEPA requirements of the problem, identify what actions are technically and compliance for piscicide treatments by state agen- and legally necessary for projects using piscicides to cies on national forests is not confined to California. proceed, and assess the USFS's proposal for streamlin- Throughout the western United States, USFS has ing bureaucracy and speeding recovery efforts. taken different NEPA-related actions on similar pro- jects, sometimes in the same national forest, or in the Interaction of Native and introduced fishes case of the Humboldt-Toiyabe, changing the action. If there is a federal nexus, such management activities Nonnative Trout require review as set forth in NEPA. Responsibility for Native inland trout populations in the western NEPA compliance traditionally has rested, though United States are naive to introduced nonnative not always, with the federal agency administering the trouts and have been greatly impacted by competi- land upon which a conservation action is to occur. tion, predation, and hybridization (Behnke 2002). The untimely interruption of the Paiute cutthroat Many watersheds have been routinely stocked for trout project is illustrative of a problem throughout more than 50 years with nonnative rainbow, cut- FISH DEPARTMENT ARIZONA GAME AND LORRAINE AVENETTI, throat, brook (Salvelinus fontinalis), and brown (Salmo trutta) trouts (Fuller et al. 1999). Nonnative fishes perspective can be successful when introduced into new environ- ments (Courtenay and Stauffer 1984; Dill and Cordone 1997). Introduction of nonnative salmonid species has Photo 1. Biologist with the Arizona Fish and contributed to the decline of most, if not all, inland Game Department native trouts (Griffith 1988; Gerstung 1988; USFWS measures antimycin 2003a). Colorado River (O. c. pleuriticus; Peterson into a drip can for and Fausch 2002; De Staso and Rahel 1994), green- restoration of Apache O. c. Photo 1 back (Wang and White 1994), and Lahontan ( trout in Snake Creek in henshawi); (Dunham et al. 1999) cutthroat trouts are the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest in OF FISH AND GAME CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT BRIAN FINLAYSON OF GAME AND FISH FRENTZEL, NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT MARTY impacted by competitive inter- Arizona. actions with brook and brown trouts. Lake trout (Salvelinus Photo 2. California namaycush) introduced into Department of Fish and Game uses a drip can to Lake Tahoe have become estab- treat Silver Creek with lished in the niche that the top rotenone for restoration native predator, Lahontan cut- of Lahontan cutthroat throat trout, formerly occupied trout in the Humboldt- (Zanden et al. 2003). Gerstung Toiybae National Forest (1988) noted that introduced in California. rainbow, brook, and brown Photo 3. Treatment of trouts had displaced popula- West Fork Gila River in tions of Lahontan cutthroat the Gila National Forest in New Mexico with trout in many
Load more

Recommended publications
  • EVALUATION of BOTANICAL PISCICIDES on NILE TILAPIA Oreochromis Niloticus L
    EVALUATION OF BOTANICAL PISCICIDES ON NILE TILAPIA Oreochromis niloticus L. AND MOSQUITO FISH Gambusia affinis BAIRD AND GIRARD Arsenia G. Cagauan, Marjorie C. Galaites and Lorenz J. Fajardo College of Fisheries and Freshwater Aquaculture Center Central Luzon State University, Science City of Muñoz, Nueva Ecija 3120, Philippines Abstract The study assessed the piscicidal activity of ten locally available plants to two freshwater fishes; Nile tilapia (O. niloticus L.) and mosquito fish (G. affinis Baird and Girard). It focused on the laboratory determination of lethal concentrations (LC50 and LC100) through a static bioassay test. The ten plants tested were ampalaya Momordica charantia, adelfa Nerium indicum, agave Agave cantala, kalamansi Citrus mitis, lagundi Vitex negundo, madre de cacao Gliricidia sepium, makabuhai Tinosphora rhumpii, neem Azadirachta indica, physic nut Jatropa curcas and sambong Blumea balsamifera. Based on the 24-hour lethal concentration (LC100), the plants with the strongest piscicidal activity to Nile tilapia and mosquito fish were makabuhai and kalamansi, respectively. The toxicity to Nile tilapia of the ten plants arranged in the order of decreasing toxicity is as follows: makabuhai (0.82 ml l-1) > adelfa (1.06 ml l-1) > ampalaya (2.59 ml l-1) > kalamansi (5 ml l-1) > neem (12.4 ml l-1) > physic nut (26.67 ml l-1) > lagundi (31.5 ml l-1) > agave (74.29 ml l-1) > madre de cacao (90 ml l-1) > sambong (125.71 ml l-1). For mosquito fish, the toxicity of the ten plants arranged in the order of decreasing toxicity is as follows: kalamansi (3 ml l-1) > makabuhai (6 ml l-1) > adelfa (7.87 ml l-1) > neem (8.31 ml l-1) > ampalaya (13.5 ml l-1) > lagundi (50 ml l-1) > sambong (80 ml l-1) > physic nut (81.67 ml l-1) > agave (102.08 ml l-1) >madre de cacao (117.5 ml l-1).
    [Show full text]
  • FISHING NEWSLETTER 2020/2021 Table of Contents FWP Administrative Regions and Hatchery Locations
    FISHING NEWSLETTER 2020/2021 Table of Contents FWP Administrative Regions and Hatchery Locations .........................................................................................3 Region 1 Reports: Northwest Montana ..........................................................................................................5 Region 2 Reports: West Central Montana .....................................................................................................17 Region 3 Reports: Southwest Montana ........................................................................................................34 Region 4 Reports: North Central Montana ...................................................................................................44 Region 5 Reports: South Central Montana ...................................................................................................65 Region 6 Reports: Northeast Montana ........................................................................................................73 Region 7 Reports: Southeast Montana .........................................................................................................86 Montana Fish Hatchery Reports: .......................................................................................................................92 Murray Springs Trout Hatchery ...................................................................................................................92 Washoe Park Trout Hatchery .......................................................................................................................93
    [Show full text]
  • 1998-Vol24-No1web.Pdf
    Voices .-m.*r +- s I s IT down to write an address itself solely to fly fishing. We introduction to our Winter Mary have excerpted two chapters here, "An- A1998 issue, I am fresh from a Orvis Mar- gling as a Medicine" and "Capture of conversation with Richard C. Hoff- bury flies in our col- My First Salmon." I think you'll appre- mann in which we reviewed the page lection. Betts, who rescued ciate both Dawson's voice and counsel. proofs of his book excerpt (see page 2). the flies when he was cleaning out Back to Baja. I was lucky enough to This conversation was one of several the attic of Orvis's old factory building be among the 150 or so who attended we've had in the course of the last back in the mid-196os, has his own his- the second International Festival of month or so, and I enjoyed it thor- torical attachment to the collection of Women Fly Fishers there from Novem- oughly. models used for the color plates in her ber 5 to lo, 1997. I was there represent- One of the most satisfying aspects of 1892 book. You can hear a bit of his ing the Museum as a member of a pub- this job is beginning to know the au- voice in "Some of Marbury's Favorite lications panel led by former editor thors-dealing not only with the voice Bass and Fancy Lake Flies." Margot Page. Another member was of a written work, but also with the And Jiirgen Preylowski, that fabu- Lyla Foggia, an author whose book, author's more personal voice through lous designer and art director from Reel Women: The World of Women Who letters and phone conversations.
    [Show full text]
  • FWP Fish Removal Projects Fish and Wildlife Commission Work Session May 18, 2021
    FWP Fish Removal Projects Fish and Wildlife Commission Work Session May 18, 2021 Fish removal is a common method used to manipulate population densities and species composition of a fishery. Fish removals may be used to reduce competition between species, remove undesirable or invasive species, protect species with elevated conservation risk, or to improve the quality of a sport fishery. Removals are often intended to restore or reintroduce native fish to a drainage or to improve an existing fishery. Most removal projects aspire to improve fishing opportunity by reintroducing species better suited for available habitats or by reducing competition with other species. Tools commonly used by FWP for removal include angling regulations, netting and electrofishing, dewatering, construction of barriers, and use of piscicides/chemicals (Table 1). These are described in more detail below. Table 1: Comparison of fish control or removal methods commonly used for fisheries management. Control Method Advantages Disadvantages Typical Use Angling regulations Allows harvest of Slow, angling pressure often Used where total removal not fish, and less fish inadequate for significant possible or necessary waste change, and many species/sizes not vulnerable Netting and Can allow for Unlikely to eradicate fish and Used in large lakes or rivers where Electrofishing selective removal could harm non-targeted species chemicals not feasible, small streams through bycatch to reduce species competition, or where sensitive/endangered species must be protected Dewatering
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDIX C Use of Piscicides and Neutralization Compounds
    APPENDIX C Use of Piscicides and Neutralization Compounds Historic Use of Piscicides to Manage Fisheries Fisheries managers rely on a variety of tools to manage and assess fish populations. Historically, these have included the use of piscicides. Two piscicides, rotenone and antimycin A, are currently registered by EPA for general use in the United States under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). By law, the EPA is authorized to register a pesticide only if it will not cause unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment. Originally, piscicides were mainly used to control out-of-balance or undesirable fish populations so that sport fish could be stocked for recreational purposes. Today, antimycin and rotenone are used in fisheries management for a variety of purposes, including (Finlayson et al. 2000): • Eradication of nonnative fish, • Restoration of threatened and endangered fish, • Support of recreational fisheries by controlling undesirable fish, • Eradication of fish to control disease, • Quantification of populations of aquatic organisms, • Eradication of competing fish in rearing facilities or ponds prior to restocking. Although physical removal methods (e.g., nets, traps, seines, electrofishing, dewatering, and combinations of physical control techniques) are available for reducing or controlling fish communities, they are generally incapable of eradicating fish (Finlayson et al. 2000). Meronek et al. (1996) review of fish control projects found that success rates for physical removal methods ranged from 33 percent to 57 percent. In most streams, only piscicide applications or complete dewatering can eradicate entire populations of undesirable fish (Schnick 1974). Rotenone Rotenone has been used in the United States to manage fish populations since the 1930s and is the piscicide of choice for application in ponds and lakes.
    [Show full text]
  • Acute Toxicity Evaluation of Water Extract Stem Barks of Balanites Aegyptiaca on Adults of Three Different Fish Species
    Vol. 11(2), pp. 9-15, February 2019 DOI: 10.5897/JTEHS2018.0426 Article Number: CC6770C60069 ISSN: 2006-9820 Copyright ©2019 Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Author(s) retain the copyright of this article http://www.academicjournals.org/JTEHS Health Sciences Full Length Research Paper Acute toxicity evaluation of water extract stem barks of Balanites aegyptiaca on adults of three different fish species Alamrew Eyayu1,2* and Abebe Getahun2 1Department of Biology, College of Natural Sciences, Debre Berhan University, Debre Berhan, P. O. Box 445, Ethiopia. 2Department of Zoological Sciences, Addis Ababa University, P. O. Box 1176, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Received 17 December, 2018: Accepted 7 January, 2019 A 96 h static toxicity bioassay was carried out to examine fish responses and to determine the median lethal concentration (LC50) of Balanites aegyptiaca stem bark extract on adults of Brycinus nurse, Labeobarbus bynni and Labeobarbus intermedius. Experimental fish were exposed to piscicide plant extract of 0.0 (control), 15.0, 17.5, 20.0, 22.5, and 25.0 mgL-1. Fish exposed to these extracts except the control showed symptoms of toxicity including darting, agitated swimming, air gulping, loss of sensitivity and knockdown before death. These responses were much frequent and faster in L. bynni -1 and L. intermedius. The 96 h LC50 values for the different test fishes were 18.99, 20.72 and 20.72 mg L for L. bynni, L. intermedius and B. nurse, respectively. Based on the present investigation, we can conclude that the application of B. aegyptiaca extract causes lethal toxic effects on different fishes even at low concentrations and hence, indiscriminate use of the plant for fishing should be discouraged and regulated in order to protect fish biodiversity lose in the Alitash National Park area.
    [Show full text]
  • Piscicides in Tropical Freshwater Aquaculture – an Overview
    Indian J. Anim. Hlth. (2017), 56(1) : 11-30 Review Article PISCICIDES IN TROPICAL FRESHWATER AQUACULTURE – AN OVERVIEW S. K. DAS*, C. SARKHEL1, A. MANDAL2 AND R. DINDA Department of Aquaculture Faculty of Fishery Sciences West Bengal University of Animal and Fishery Sciences Chakgaria, Kolkata 700 094 Application of piscicides of varying nature and compositions are widespread as part of the prestocking management of nursery ponds in tropical carp culture practices. The effectiveness, economic aspect as well as environmental consequences are widely discussed. Chemical piscicides though are very fast effective; there is an inherent risk of residual and colateral impact upon the nutrient dynamics of the pond ecology. Application of dimethyl = 2 : 2 dichlorovenyl phosphate (DDVP) results in N limitation, whereas, application of urea [CO(NH2)2] in combination with bleaching powder [Ca(OCl)Cl] favours P limitation. Piscicides of plant origin are safe, economical, imparts short term negative impact upon the biogeochemical cycling microbs unlike that of chemical compounds. Herbal piscicides upon decomposition favours N : P ratio to be in the desirable range of 4 : 1- 8 : 1. Understanding on the subject is limited in term of pisicicidal impact upon the microbial as well as planktonic profile of the pond culture system Key words: Biogeochemical cycling, N: P ratio, Piscicides, Residual impact Efficient pond fish farming entails small, must be adopted to remove or control seasonal ponds preferable as they facilitate predatory and unwanted fishes (Jhingran, effective control of environmental 1991) for getting maximum survival rate conditions and also because of automatic and production in carp culture. Unwanted destruction of predatory and weed fishes or weed fish are smaller varieties of fishes by complete dewatering of the pond.
    [Show full text]
  • Rotenone—A Review of Its Toxicity and Use for Fisheries Management
    Rotenone—a review of its toxicity and use for fisheries management SCIENCE FOR CONSERVATION 211 Nicholas Ling Published by Department of Conservation P.O. Box 10-420 Wellington, New Zealand While every care has been taken to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in this report, it is not intended as a substitute for specific specialist advice. The University of Waikato accepts no liability for any loss or damage suffered as a result of relying on the information, or applying it either directly or indirectly. Science for Conservation is a scientific monograph series presenting research funded by New Zealand Department of Conservation (DOC). Manuscripts are internally and externally peer-reviewed; resulting publications are considered part of the formal international scientific literature. Titles are listed in the DOC Science Publishing catalogue on the departmental website http:// www.doc.govt.nz and printed copies can be purchased from [email protected] © Copyright January 2003, New Zealand Department of Conservation ISSN 1173–2946 ISBN 0–478–22345–5 In the interest of forest conservation, DOC Science Publishing supports paperless electronic publishing. When printing, recycled paper is used wherever possible. This report (DOC science investigation no. 3414) was prepared for publication by DOC Science Publishing, Science & Research Unit; editing by Ian Mackenzie and layout by Ruth Munro. Publication was approved by the Manager, Science & Research Unit, Science Technology and Information Services, Department of Conservation, Wellington. CONTENTS Abstract 5 PART 1. A REVIEW OF THE USE AND TOXICITY OF ROTENONE FOR FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PURPOSES 1. Introduction 6 2. Use in fisheries management and research 9 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Game and Fish Department
    ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT PISCICIDE TREATMENT PLANNING AND PROCEDURES MANUAL May 25, 2012 PISCICIDE TREATMENT PLANNING AND PROCEDURES MANUAL Arizona Game and Fish Department Piscicide Treatment Planning and Procedures Manual - May 2012 2 Table of Contents CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION, ARIZONA GAME AND FISH COMMISSION POLICY ON ROTENONE, AND FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE ROTENONE REVIEW ADVISORY COMMITTEE ........................................................................................................... 4 CHAPTER 2. OUTLINE OF PISCICIDE PROJECT PLANNING STAGES ............................. 8 Process Map of Piscicide Project Planning Process for New Projects ...................................... 11 Process Map for Emergency Rapid Response Treatments, Re-treatments, and New Projects Covered Under an Existing Approval Process .......................................................................... 12 CHAPTER 3. PISCICIDE PROJECT PLANNING AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT – FOR NEW TREATMENTS .................................................................................................................. 13 Stage 1. Piscicide Project Internal Review and Approval ........................................................ 13 Stage 2. Preliminary Treatment and Public Involvement Plan ................................................ 14 Stage 3. Intermediate Planning and Public Involvement Procedures....................................... 21 Stage 4. Project Implementation and Evaluation ....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 191 Piscicide Effects of Mahua Oil Cake from the Finfish Culture System
    International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (IJTSRD) International Open Access Journal ISSN No: 2456 - 6470 | www.ijtsrd.com | Volume - 2 | Issue – 5 Piscicide Effects o f Mahua Oil Cake from t he Finfish Culture System R. Vinothkumar 1, Rupam Dey 1, Dr. M. Srinivasan 2 1Research Scholar, 2Professor Center of Advanced Study in Marine Biology, Faculty of Marine Sciences, Annamalai Un iversity, Parangipettai, Tamilnadu, India ABSTRACT The present investigation envisage a study of the friendlier to the environment as they are easily effects of pesticides on four fin fishe s Oreochromis biodegraded, easily available, less expensive, lower mossambicus from mahua oil cake, a derived from the toxicity and do not leave any residues i n the plant Madhuca longi folia seed. Although some environment. A larger number of plant products are reports on the effects of mahua oil cake on fin fishes commonly used in controlling these unwanted fish and Madhuca seed on fresh water pond culture populations such as the powdered seed of Croton systems are available, information on their effect on tiglium and Barringtonia acutangula , tea seed cake brackish water culture systems are rather scanty. and mahua oil cake (MOC). Fishes along with the shrimps were taken at 10, 20, 30 ppt salinity and mahua oil cake (MOC) was applied at Plant materials such as tea seed cake or Derris root 10, 15, 20 ppm concentrations to see the mortality powder, are commonly used in Japan in shrimp timings of the fishes. Phyisco-chemic al parameters culture ponds to kill selectively fishes. The toxic and LC50 concentration were recorded in the study.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Fisheries Resource Management NPDES and State Waste Discharge General Permit Fact Sheet
    Draft Fisheries Resource Management NPDES and State Waste Discharge General Permit Fact Sheet June 3, 2015 Scan with QR reader to go to permit webpage Contents Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 1 Brief Review of Regulatory Authority ........................................................................................... 2 Aquatic Pesticide Legal History ..................................................................................................... 3 Piscicide Use in Fisheries Management ......................................................................................... 7 Current Piscicide Use by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife ................................. 8 Restoration of Native Fish and Habitat ........................................................................................... 9 Evaluation of Available Fish Control Options.............................................................................. 10 Wastewater Characterization ........................................................................................................ 13 WDFW Lake and Stream Rehabilitation Policy and Procedures ................................................. 14 Pre-Treatment Procedures ............................................................................................................. 14 Treatment Procedures ..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Use of Chemicals in Aquaculture in India
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center, Aquaculture Department Institutional Repository (SEAFDEC/AQD Institutional Repository ) SEAFDEC/AQD Institutional Repository (SAIR) Title The use of chemicals in aquaculture in India. Author(s) Pathak, S.C.; Ghosh, S.K.; Palanisamy, K. Pathak, S.C., Ghosh, S.K., & Palanisamy, K. (2000). The use of chemicals in aquaculture in India. In: J.R. Arthur, C.R. Lavilla-Pitogo, & R.P. Subasinghe (Eds.) Use of Chemicals in Aquaculture in Asia : Proceedings Citation of the Meeting on the Use of Chemicals in Aquaculture in Asia 20-22 May 1996, Tigbauan, Iloilo, Philippines (pp. 87-112). Tigbauan, Iloilo, Philippines: Aquaculture Department, Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center. Issue Date 2000 URL http://hdl.handle.net/10862/604 This document is downloaded at: 2013-07-02 08:41:08 CST http://repository.seafdec.org.ph 87 The Use of Chemicals in Aquaculture in India1 S.C.Pathak, S.K.Ghosh, and K. Palanisamy Technical Services Department National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development P.O. Box No. 6552, Worli, Bombay - 400 018, India ABSTRACT A review of the use of chemotherapeutants and other chemicals and drugs in Indian aquaculture is presented. A large number of products are used for various purposes such as soil and water treatments, disinfectants, piscicides, herbicides, organic and inorganic fertilizers, feed additives, therapeutants, and anesthetics. Farm management techniques for the use of chemicals are discussed, as are the hazards posed by, and impacts resulting from chemical use. Other approaches to disease prevention (crop holiday, pond preparation, regulating stocking density, effluent treatment systems) are considered, and national regulations on the use of chemicals in aquaculture and current research being conducted in India are summarized.
    [Show full text]