DOCSLIB.ORG

Appendix A. National Fish Hatchery System Propagation Programs by Region, Reduction Scenario, and Funding to Support Those Programs in FY 2012

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Appendix A. National Fish Hatchery System Propagation Programs by Region, Reduction Scenario, and Funding to Support Those Programs in FY 2012 Appendix A. National Fish Hatchery System propagation programs by Region, reduction scenario, and funding to support those programs in FY 2012. Service funding for programs highlighted in orange would be discontinued under an 11 percent reduction scenario. Programs highlighted in yellow or orange would no longer receive Service funding under a 15 percent reduction scenario, and those highlighted in pink, yellow, or orange would no longer receive Service funding under a 24 percent reduction scenario. Funding ($) Total % of Hatchery Annual Operations & Other Region / Hatchery Production Operations Maintenance Maintenance Service Reimbursable Region 1 Carson NFH 3.1 ‐ Tribal programs specifically required by treaty, legislation, court order, or consent decree spring Chinook1 83 0 71,329 71,329 0 477,755 spring Chinook 2 17 0 14,609 14,609 0 97,853 Total 100 0 85,938 85,938 0 575,608 Dworshak NFH 3.1 ‐ Tribal programs specifically required by treaty, legislation, court order, or consent decree coho3 10 0 0 0 0 365,236 winter steelhead4 75 0 0 0 0 2,637,427 spring Chinook5 15 0 0 0 0 509,223 Total 100 0 0 0 0 3,511,886 Eagle Creek NFH 3.1 ‐ Tribal programs specifically required by treaty, legislation, court order, or consent decree coho6 70 0 72,800 72,800 0 320,069 4.1 ‐ Native mitigation, fully reimbursed coho7 26 0 27,350 27,350 0 120,255 winter steelhead8 4 50,000 3,850 53,850 0 16,918 Total 100 50,000 104,000 154,000 0 457,242 Entiat NFH 3.1 ‐ Tribal programs specifically required by treaty, legislation, court order, or consent decree Summer Chinook9 100 0 0 0 0 595,371 Total 100 0 0 0 0 595,371 Hagerman NFH 3.1 ‐ Tribal programs specifically required by treaty, legislation, court order, or consent decree summer steelhead10 92 0 0 0 0 90,117 4.1 ‐ Native mitigation, fully reimbursed rainbow trout11 8 0 0 0 0 1,008,870 Total 100 0 0 0 0 1,098,987 1 2008‐2017 U.S. v. Oregon Management Agreement, Mitchell Act 2 2008‐2017 U.S. v. Oregon Management Agreement 3 2008‐2017 U.S. v. Oregon Management Agreement, Snake River Basin Adjudication 4 2008‐2017 U.S. v. Oregon Management Agreement, MOU with ACOE‐Dworshak Dam Mitigation 5 2008‐2017 U.S. v. Oregon Management Agreement, Lower Snake River Compensation Plan 6 2008‐2017 U.S. v. Oregon Management Agreement, Mitchell Act 7 Mitchell Act‐Bonneville Dam Mitigation 8 Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Plan 9 2008‐2017 U.S. v. Oregon Management Agreement, Mitchell Act 10 2008‐2017 U.S. v. Oregon Management Agreement; Lower Snake River Compensation Plan 11 MOU with ACOE‐Dworshak Dam Mitigation 1 Appendix A. Continued. Funding ($) Total % of Hatchery Annual Operations & Other Region / Hatchery Production Operations Maintenance Maintenance Service Reimbursable Kooskia NFH 3.1 ‐ Tribal programs specifically required by treaty, legislation, court order, or consent decree spring Chinook12 100 478,131 122,528 600,659 0 0 Total 100 478,131 122,528 600,659 0 0 Leavenworth NFH 3.1 ‐ Tribal programs specifically required by treaty, legislation, court order, or consent decree coho13 32 0 0 0 0 560,771 spring Chinook14 68 0 0 0 0 1,213,822 Total 100 0 0 0 0 1,774,593 Little White Salmon NFH 1 ‐Recovery spring Chinook(White R.)15 0 0 227 227 0 4,609 3.1 ‐ Tribal programs specifically required by treaty, legislation, court order, or consent decree fall Chinook16 14 0 7,791 7,791 0 157,853 fall Chinook17 38 0 21,325 21,325 0 432,080 fall Chinook‐(URB+Tule)18 42 0 23,599 23,599 0 478,168 spring Chinook19 7 0 3,924 3,924 0 79,503 Total 100 0 56,866 56,866 0 1,152,213 Makah NFH 1 ‐Recovery sockeye (Lake Ozette)20 10 59,267 15,704 74,971 0 0 3.3 – Other Tribal programs that raise native fish fall Chinook21 79 483,304 128,063 611,367 0 0 coho22 7 42,159 11,171 53,330 0 0 winter steelhead23 4 26,275 6,962 33,237 0 0 Total 100 611,005 161,900 772,905 0 0 Quilcene NFH 1 ‐Recovery steelhead24 1 6,442 1,688 8,130 0 0 3.3 – Other Tribal programs that raise native fish coho25 99 489,087 128,158 617,245 0 0 Total 100 495,529 129,846 625,375 0 0 12 2008‐2017 U.S. v. Oregon Management Agreement, Snake River Basin Adjudication, Lower Snake River Compensation Plan 13 2008‐2017 U.S. v. Oregon Management Agreement, Mid‐Columbia Coho Restoration Program Master Plan(YN) 14 2008‐2017 U.S. v. Oregon Management Agreement, Mitchell Act 15 Priest Rapids Salmon and Steelhead Settlement Agreement, UCR salmon and steelhead Recovery Plan (2007) 16 2008‐2017 U.S. v. Oregon Management Agreement 17 2008‐2017 U.S. v. Oregon Management Agreement 18 2008‐2017 U.S. v. Oregon Management Agreement, Mitchell Act 19 2008‐2017 U.S. v. Oregon Management Agreement, Mitchell Act 20 Lake Ozette Sockeye Salmon Recovery Plan, 2009 21 Makah NFH Cooperative Agreement 22 Makah NFH Cooperative Agreement 23 Makah NFH Cooperative Agreement 24 Hood Canal Steelhead Project 25 Hood Canal Salmon Management Plan, Puget Sound Salmon Management Plan, U.S. v. WA Appendix A. Continued. Funding ($) Total % of Hatchery Annual Operations & Other Region / Hatchery Production Operations Maintenance Maintenance Service Reimbursable Quinault NFH 3.3 – Other Tribal programs that raise native fish coho26 23 155,556 31,169 186,725 0 0 chum salmon27 50 332,385 66,601 398,986 0 0 winter steelhead28 27 176,829 35,432 212,261 0 0 Total 100 664,770 133,202 797,972 0 0 Spring Creek NFH 3.1 ‐ Tribal programs specifically required by treaty, legislation, court order, or consent decree fall Chinook (Tule)29 100 0 52,468 52,468 0 1,132,744 Total 100 0 52,468 52,468 0 1,132,744 Warm Springs NFH (OR) 3.1 ‐ Tribal programs specifically required by treaty, legislation, court order, or consent decree spring Chinook30 100 606,052 142,016 748,068 0 0 Total 100 606,052 142,016 748,068 0 0 Willard NFH 3.1 ‐ Tribal programs specifically required by treaty, legislation, court order, or consent decree coho31 71 0 40,488 40,488 0 162,508 spring Chinook32 29 0 16,377 16,377 0 65,733 Total 100 0 56,865 56,865 0 228,241 Winthrop NFH 1 ‐Recovery summer steelhead33 12 0 0 0 0 154,277 3.1 ‐ Tribal programs specifically required by treaty, legislation, court order, or consent decree coho 34 26 0 0 0 0 331,695 spring Chinook35 62 0 0 0 0 779,669 Total 100 0 0 0 0 1,265,641 Region 2 Alchesay NFH 3.2 ‐ Tribal programs covered by a treaty or legislation rainbow trout36 19 292,947 40,337 333,284 0 0 Brown trout37 0 15,620 2,151 17,771 0 0 3.4 ‐ Tribal programs that raise nonnative fish rainbow trout38 0 28,973 3,989 32,962 0 0 Total 19 337,539 46,478 384,017 0 0 26 Quinault NFH Cooperative Agreement 27 Quinault NFH Cooperative Agreement 28 Quinault NFH Cooperative Agreement 29 2008‐2017 U.S. v. Oregon Management Agreement, Mitchell Act 30 2008‐2017 U.S. v. Oregon Management Agreement 31 2008‐2017 U.S. v. Oregon Management Agreement, Mid‐Columbia Coho Restoration Program Master Plan(YN) 32 2008‐2017 U.S. v. Oregon Management Agreement, Mitchell Act 33 2008‐2017 U.S. v. Oregon Management Agreement; UCR salmon and steelhead Recovery Plan; FCRPS Biological Opinion 34 2008‐2017 U.S. v. Oregon Management Agreement, Mid‐Columbia Coho Restoration Program Master Plan(YN) 35 2008‐2017 U.S. v. Oregon Management Agreement, Mitchell Act, UCR salmon and steelhead Recovery Plan; FCRPS BiOp 36 Treaty with the Apache, 1852 37 Treaty with the Apache, 1852 38 No management plan Appendix A. Continued. Funding ($) Total % of Hatchery Annual Operations & Other Region / Hatchery Production Operations Maintenance Maintenance Service Reimbursable Inks Dam NFH 1 ‐Recovery Clear Creek gambusia 4 17,450 4,013 21,463 0 0 2 ‐ Restoration Paddlefish 21 91,614 28,089 119,703 0 0 3.3 – Other Tribal programs that raise native fish Channel catfish 25 107,974 33,105 141,079 0 0 3.4 ‐ Tribal programs that raise nonnative fish Channel catfish 50 219,220 67,213 286,433 0 0 Total 100 436,258 132,420 568,678 0 0 Mora NFH 1 ‐Recovery Gila trout 100 488,137 102,965 591,102 0 0 Total 100 488,137 102,965 591,102 0 0 San Marcos ARC 1 ‐Recovery Barton Springs salamander 13 96,758 12,871 109,629 0 0 Comal Springs dryopid beetle 1 7,741 1,030 8,771 0 0 Comal Springs riffle beetle 8 58,055 7,722 65,777 0 0 Devils River minnow 13 96,758 12,871 109,629 0 0 Fountain darter 15 116,109 15,445 131,554 0 0 Peck's cave amphipod 1 7,741 1,030 8,771 0 0 Salamander at Comal Spgs 5 38,703 5,148 43,851 0 0 San Marcos salamander 13 96,758 12,871 109,629 0 0 Texas blind salamander 10 77,406 10,296 87,702 0 0 Texas wild rice 15 116,109 15,445 131,554 0 0 2 ‐ Restoration Texas fatmucket mussel39 5 38,703 5,148 43,851 0 0 Golden orb, all 4 species 40 3 23,222 3,089 26,311 0 0 Texas pimpleback, all 4 species41 0 0 0 0 0 0 Smooth pimpleback, all 4 species42 0 0 0 0 0 0 Texas fawnsfoot, all 4 species43 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 100 774,063 102,966 877,029 0 0 39 Candidate species, no management plan 40 Candidate species, no management plan 41 Candidate species, no management plan 42 Candidate species, no management plan 43 Candidate species, no management plan Appendix A.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Spawning and Early Life History of Mountain Whitefish in The
    SPAWNING AND EARLY LIFE HISTORY OF MOUNTAIN WHITEFISH IN THE MADISON RIVER, MONTANA by Jan Katherine Boyer A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Fish and Wildlife Management MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY Bozeman, Montana January 2016 © COPYRIGHT by Jan Katherine Boyer 2016 All Rights Reserved ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First, I thank my advisor, Dr. Christopher Guy, for challenging me and providing advice throughout every stage of this project. I also thank my committee members, Dr. Molly Webb and Dr. Tom McMahon, for guidance and suggestions which greatly improved this research. My field technicians Jordan Rowe, Greg Hill, and Patrick Luckenbill worked hard through fair weather and snowstorms to help me collect the data presented here. I also thank Travis Horton, Pat Clancey, Travis Lohrenz, Tim Weiss, Kevin Hughes, Rick Smaniatto, and Nick Pederson of Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks for field assistance and advice. Mariah Talbott, Leif Halvorson, and Eli Cureton of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service assisted with field and lab work. Richard Lessner and Dave Brickner at the Madison River Foundation helped to secure funding for this project and conduct outreach in the Madison Valley. The Channels Ranch, Valley Garden Ranch, Sun West Ranch, and Galloup’s Slide Inn provided crucial land and river access. I also thank my fellow graduate students both for advice on project and class work and for being excellent people to spend time with. Ann Marie Reinhold, Mariah Mayfield, David Ritter, and Peter Brown were especially helpful during the early stages of this project.
    [Show full text]
  • Fisheries Management Plan for Black Hills Streams 2015 – 2019
    Fisheries Management Plan for Black Hills Streams 2015 – 2019 South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks Wildlife Division Gene Galinat Greg Simpson Bill Miller Jake Davis Michelle Bucholz John Carreiro Dylan Jones Stan Michals Fisheries Management Plan for Black Hills Streams, 2015-2019 Table of Contents I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 3 II. Resource Descriptions ........................................................................................................... 4 Black Hills Fish Management Area ...................................................................................... 4 III. Management of Black Hills Fish Management Area Stream Fisheries ...................... 7 Classification of Trout Streams ............................................................................................. 7 Regulations .............................................................................................................................. 7 Stocking .................................................................................................................................... 8 Fish Surveys ............................................................................................................................ 8 Angler Surveys ........................................................................................................................ 9 Habitat and Angler Access ...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Vermont Management Plan for Brook, Brown and Rainbow Trout Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department January 2018
    The Vermont Management Plan for Brook, Brown and Rainbow Trout Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department January 2018 Prepared by: Rich Kirn, Fisheries Program Manager Reviewed by: Brian Chipman, Will Eldridge, Jud Kratzer, Bret Ladago, Chet MacKenzie, Adam Miller, Pete McHugh, Lee Simard, Monty Walker, Lael Will ACKNOWLEDGMENT: This project was made possible by fishing license sales and matching Dingell- Johnson/Wallop-Breaux funds available through the Federal Sportfish Restoration Act. Table of Contents I. Introduction ......................................................................................... 1 II. Life History and Ecology ................................................................... 2 III. Management History ......................................................................... 7 IV. Status of Existing Fisheries ............................................................. 13 V. Management of Trout Habitat .......................................................... 17 VI. Management of Wild Trout............................................................. 34 VII. Management of Cultured Trout ..................................................... 37 VIII. Management of Angler Harvest ................................................... 66 IX. Trout Management Plan Goals, Objectives and Strategies .............. 82 X. Summary of Laws and Regulations .................................................. 87 XI. Literature Cited ............................................................................... 92 I. Introduction
    [Show full text]
  • 321 Cmr: Division of Fisheries and Wildlife
    321 CMR: DIVISION OF FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE 321 CMR 5.00: COLDWATER FISH RESOURCES Section 5.01: Introduction and Purpose 5.02: Definitions 5.03: Criteria and Procedure for Designating Coldwater Fish Resources 5.04: Requests that the Division Evaluate the CFR Status of a Waterbody 5.01: Introduction and Purpose Certain species of fish are sensitive to increases in temperature and require coldwater to fulfill one or more of their life stage requirements. Since the 1940's, the Division has documented the presence of coldwater fish resources (CFRs) in the Commonwealth where these fish occur. In the 1990's, the Division established a list of CFRs to facilitate the tracking and effective monitoring, management and protection of these resources by the Division, other state agencies, and local regulatory authorities, including conservation commissions and planning boards. Under the Department of Environmental Protection's Water Management Act regulations at 310 CMR 36.00: Massachusetts Water Resources Management Program, an applicant proposing a water withdrawal that may affect a CFR designated by the Division pursuant to 321 CMR 5.00 will be required to minimize any impact on the CFR. The Division has not assessed all of the waterbodies in the Commonwealth to determine their status as a CFR. 321 CMR 5.00 codifies the criteria, procedures and related definitions used by the Division to designate waterbodies as CFRs. 321 CMR 5.00 also provides notice of where the Division's current list of CFRs is available for review by regulatory authorities
    [Show full text]
  • The Fish Communities of the Toronto Waterfront: Summary and Assessment 1989 - 2005
    THE FISH COMMUNITIES OF THE TORONTO WATERFRONT: SUMMARY AND ASSESSMENT 1989 - 2005 SEPTEMBER 2008 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to thank the many technical staff, past and present, of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and Ministry of Natural Resources who diligently collected electrofishing data for the past 16 years. The completion of this report was aided by the Canada Ontario Agreement (COA). 1 Jason P. Dietrich, 1 Allison M. Hennyey, 1 Rick Portiss, 1 Gord MacPherson, 1 Kelly Montgomery and 2 Bruce J. Morrison 1 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, ON, M3N 1S4, Canada 2 Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Lake Ontario Fisheries Management Unit, Glenora Fisheries Station, Picton, ON, K0K 2T0, Canada © Toronto and Region Conservation 2008 ABSTRACT Fish community metrics collected for 16 years (1989 — 2005), using standardized electrofishing methods, throughout the greater Toronto region waterfront, were analyzed to ascertain the current state of the fish community with respect to past conditions. Results that continue to indicate a degraded or further degrading environment include an overall reduction in fish abundance, a high composition of benthivores, an increase in invasive species, an increase in generalist species biomass, yet a decrease in specialist species biomass, and a decrease in cool water Electrofishing in the Toronto Harbour thermal guild species biomass in embayments. Results that may indicate a change in a positive community health direction include no significant changes to species richness, a marked increase in diversity in embayments, a decline in non-native species in embayments and open coasts (despite the invasion of round goby), a recent increase in native species biomass, fluctuating native piscivore dynamics, increased walleye abundance, and a reduction in the proportion of degradation tolerant species.
    [Show full text]
  • Coldwater Fish: Whitefish and Smelt - Anthony J
    FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE – Vol. III – Coldwater Fish: Whitefish and Smelt - Anthony J. Novotny COLDWATER FISH: WHITEFISH AND SMELT Anthony J. Novotny Fisheries Research Biologist, Marinka International, 1919 E. Calhoun, Seattle, WA 98112-2644,USA Keywords: aquaculture, brackish waters, cages, capture fisheries, coregonids, floating net pens, fresh water, gill-netting, hatchery, lakes, net value, non-inland waters, osmerids, ponds, pond culture, pumped water, rivers, seining, smelts, traps, whitefish. Contents 1. Introduction 2. World Production of Smelt in Fresh and Brackish Waters by Capture 2.1. World Smelt Production by Capture in Inland Fresh Waters - 1984-1997 2.2. World Freshwater Smelt Production by Capture in Fresh and Brackish Waters, other than Inland Waters - 1984-1997 3. World Production of the Whitefish (whitefish) in Fresh and Brackish Waters by Capture and Aquaculture 3.1. World Production of Wild Whitefish (whitefish) in Fresh and Brackish Waters by Capture: 1984-1997 3.2. World Aquaculture Production of the Whitefish (whitefish) 3.2.1. Whitefish Aquaculture Technology 3.2.2. Production of the Cultured Whitefish 3.2.3. Value of Farmed Whitefish Appendix Glossary Bibliography Biographical sketch Summary The production of fresh and brackish water whitefish and smelts by either capture or culture between 1984 and 1997, represents an average of less than 0.5% of all world wide freshwater fish production. While the total world freshwater fish production has increased each year during this period, the production of whitefish and smelt has declined.WhitefishUNESCO and smelt are products – of EOLSSnorthern hemisphere cold and temperate climate countries. Production of smelt is by capture fisheries, and the production of whitefish is by SAMPLEcapture fisheries and aquaculture.
    [Show full text]
  • Coldwater Fishery Resources
    Coldwater Fishery Resources Todd Richards ([email protected]) Eastern Brook Trout • Life Cycle • Biology • Conservation Brook Trout Life Cycle Winter Spring Fall Summer Brook Trout “Habitat” Cycle Spring Summer Fall Winter 2010 2011 Hamant Brook 20°C January July January July January Coldwater Fisheries Resources (CFRs) Fish Sampling Fish Community Surveys • Division samples fish communities as part of the statewide survey and inventory project. • To date we have more than 5,000 fish community samples and more than half a million individual fish records Part of !( !( NORTH C OASTAL !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !(!(!( !(!( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( Part of !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( CONNECTICUT Part of !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !(!( PARKER!(!( !( !( !(!( !( !(!(!(!(!( !(!( !(!( !( !( !(!(!( !(!( !(!(!(!(!( !( MERRIMACK !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !(!( !(!( !(!(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !(!(!(!( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(HUDSON!( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( MERRIMACK!( !( !( !(!( !(!( !(!( !(!( !(!( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !(!(
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Assemblages in European Lakes - Comparison of Sampling Methods and Analysis of Size Structure
    Fish assemblages in European lakes - Comparison of sampling methods and analysis of size structure DISSERTATION zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades Doctor rerum agriculturarum (Dr. rer. agr.) Eingereicht an der Landwirtschaftlich-Gärtnerischen Fakultät der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin von Dipl. Biol. MATTHIAS EMMRICH Präsident/Präsidentin der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin: Prof. Dr. Jan-Hendrik Olbertz Dekan/Dekanin der Landwirtschaftlich-Gärtnerischen Fakultät: Prof. Dr. Dr. h. c. Frank Ellmer Gutachter/Gutachterinnen: 1. Prof. Dr. Robert Arlinghaus 2. PD Dr. Thomas Mehner 3. Prof. Dr. Reiner Eckmann Tag der mündlichen Prüfung: 05.02.2013 Contents page List of papers V Author contributions VI Abstract (English) 1 Abstract (German) 2 1 Introduction 3 1.1 Sampling fish in lakes 4 1.1.1 Recreati onal angling 5 1.1.2 Scientific fish sampling 6 1.2 Size structure of lake fish assemblages 9 1.2.1 Anthropogenic influences of the size structure of lake fish assemblages 12 1.2.2 The role of spatial scale 13 2 Objectives 14 3 Methods and datasets 15 3.1 Sampling fish in lakes 16 3.1.1 Recreati onal angling 16 3.1.2 Scientific fish sampling 16 3.1.2.1 Multi -mesh gillnets 16 3.1 .2 .2 Trawling 18 3. 1. 2.3 Hydroacoustics 19 3.2 Size structure of lake fish assemblages 19 4 Main results 22 4.1 Sampling fish in lakes 22 4.2 Size structure of lake fish assemblages 24 5 Discussion 25 5.1 Sampling fish in lakes 25 5.2 Size structure of lake fish assemblages 29 6 Conclusions 31 Acknowledgement 32 References 34 Declaration of authorship 50 Appendix 51 Paper I 51 Paper II 67 Paper III 84 Paper IV 95 Paper V 115 List of papers This thesis is based on five papers, which are referred to in the text by their Roman numerals (I-V).
    [Show full text]
  • Piscine Mycobacteriosis
    Piscine Importance The genus Mycobacterium contains more than 150 species, including the obligate Mycobacteriosis pathogens that cause tuberculosis in mammals as well as environmental saprophytes that occasionally cause opportunistic infections. At least 20 species are known to Fish Tuberculosis, cause mycobacteriosis in fish. They include Mycobacterium marinum, some of its close relatives (e.g., M. shottsii, M. pseudoshottsii), common environmental Piscine Tuberculosis, organisms such as M. fortuitum, M. chelonae, M. abscessus and M. gordonae, and Swimming Pool Granuloma, less well characterized species such as M. salmoniphilum and M. haemophilum, Fish Tank Granuloma, among others. Piscine mycobacteriosis, which has a range of outcomes from Fish Handler’s Disease, subclinical infection to death, affects a wide variety of freshwater and marine fish. It Fish Handler’s Nodules has often been reported from aquariums, research laboratories and fish farms, but outbreaks also occur in free-living fish. The same organisms sometimes affect other vertebrates including people. Human infections acquired from fish are most often Last Updated: November 2020 characterized by skin lesions of varying severity, which occasionally spread to underlying joints and tendons. Some lesions may be difficult to cure, especially in those who are immunocompromised. Etiology Mycobacteriosis is caused by members of the genus Mycobacterium, which are Gram-positive, acid fast, pleomorphic rods in the family Mycobacteriaceae and order Actinomycetales. This genus is traditionally divided into two groups: the members of the Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex (e.g., M. tuberculosis, M. bovis, M. caprae, M. pinnipedii), which cause tuberculosis in mammals, and the nontuberculous mycobacteria. The organisms in the latter group include environmental saprophytes, which sometimes cause opportunistic infections, and other species such as M.
    [Show full text]
  • Major Challenges Through the Transforming Coldwater Fisheries in India
    Journal of Coldwater Fisheries 1(1):1-3, 2018 Major challenges through the transforming coldwater fisheries in India A K SINGH National Bureau of Fish Genetic Resources, Canal Ring Road, P.O. Dilkusha, Lucknow-226002 (Uttar Pradesh) E-mail:[email protected] ABSTRACT Himalayan River systems in India comprises of the Indus, the Ganges and the Brahmaputra being distinct entities harbouring precious ichthyofaunal diversity. The Schizothoracines are important dominant fishery of these river systems followed by cyprinids while there are numerous small fish species having ornamental value. Unfortunately, the fishery of Himalaya is suffering from anthropogenic stresses, physical barriers in the form of damming and hydropower projects and resulting habitat loss. Since societal development, climate change and ecosystem degradations are stemming into big threats to the natural aquatic resources and their fish germplasm, scientists and policy makers are facing several challenges for sustainable management of the aquatic germplasm resources and aquaculture production enhancement: Keywords: Fishery resources, Sustainable development, Aquaculture diversification; Recreational fishery; Policy framework Development of sustainable fishery resources regulatory measures and public awareness and sensitization (Singh & Akhtar, 2015, Singh & Sarma, 2017; Singh, 2018). The subsistence and commercial fisheries of Himalayan states exploit major important species under Development of eco-tourism and recreational schizothoracines (Schizothorax and Schizothoraichthys
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Fauna of River Ujh, an Important Tributary of the River Ravi, District Kathua, Jammu
    Environment Conservation Journal 16 (1&2)81-86, 2015 ISSN 0972-3099 (Print) 2278-5124 (Online) Abstracted and Indexed Fish fauna of river Ujh, an important tributary of the river Ravi, District Kathua, Jammu V. Rathore and S. P. S. Dutta Received:16.03.2015 Accepted:18.05.2015 Abstract Fish survey of river Ujh, an important clean water tributary of the river Ravi, in Kathua district, has revealed the presence of 42 fish species belonging to 5 orders, 10 families and 27 genera. Fish fauna is dominated by Cypriniformes (27 species), followed by Siluriformes (10 species), Synbranchiformes (2 species), Perciformes (2 species) and Beloniformes (1 species). Fishing methods commonly employed include cast net, rod and hook, pocket net, poisoning, hand picking, stick, sickle and simple cloth. Fish diversity is fast depleting due to over exploitation, illegal fishing methods and fishing during breeding season. There are great prospects of increasing fish production in this river by stocking various carps in seasonal Ujh barrage at village Jasrota. Keywords: Fish fauna, river, fish diversity Introduction Riverine fish resources are fast depleting due to passes through narrow valley, deepens more and lack of fish resource information and over more to assume the character of gorge. Further exploitation. Sustainable exploitation of water bodies require detailed analysis of fish fauna down, at Panjtirthi, the valley widens and four inhabiting lotic waters and scientific streams viz. Bhini, Dangara, Sutar and Talin join management through regular monitoring and the Ujh. The Bhini is perennial and the remaining proper check on fishing pressure, including three streams are seasonal.It ultimately joins the unscientific fishing methods.
    [Show full text]
  • Coldwater Fish Diversity of India and Its Sustainable Development A
    Coldwater Fish Diversity of India and Its Sustainable Development A. K. Singh* and M. S. Akhtar ICAR-Directorate of Coldwater Fisheries Research, Bhimtal-263136, Nainital, Uttarakhand *Email: [email protected] Introduction India is one of the mega biodiversity hotspots in the world and occupies the 9th position in terms of freshwater mega biodiversity (Mittermeier et al., 1997). Biodiversity is essential for stabilization of ecosystems, protection of overall environmental quality, for understanding intrinsic worth of all species on the earth (Ehrlich and Wilson, 1991). The country is bestowed with vast and varied coldwater/hill fishery resources which are spread over the Himalayan and peninsular regions as upland rivers, streams, high and low altitude natural lakes and reservoirs. There are around Fig. 1 : Number of species present in the North-East India 8,243 km long streams and rivers, 20,500 ha (Ali, 2010) natural lakes, 50,000 ha of reservoirs, both natural and manmade, and 2500 ha brackish water lakes in central Himalaya and 91 from the Deccan plateau the high altitude (Mahanta & Sarma, 2010). The (Fig. 1). Coldwater rivers and hill streams are known for The commercially important Indian coldwater their high velocity water fall, rapid cascades, deep species are Tor tor, T. putiora, T. mosal, T. pools and substratum comprising bed rock - progeneius, T. khudree, T. mussullah, T. mala- boulder - sand. These vast and varied water baricus, Naziritor chelynoides, Neolissochielus resources in the uplands harbour rich ichthy- wynaadensis, N. hexagonolepis, Schizotho- ofaunal diversity comprising large populations of raichthys progastus, S. esocinus, Schizothorax indigenous and exotic, cultivable and non- richardsonii, S.
    [Show full text]