Threats to Freshwater Fisheries in the United States

Natural Resource Ecology and Management Natural Resource Ecology and Management Publications

2-7-2019 Threats to freshwater fisheries in the United States: perspectives and investments of state fisheries administrators and Agricultural Experiment Station directors Andrew K. Carlson Michigan State University

William W. Taylor Michigan State University

Michael T. Kinnison University of Maine

S. Mažeika P. Sullivan ThFoel loOhwio thiStaste a Undniv aerddsityitional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/nrem_pubs Part of the Aquaculture and Fisheries Commons, Environmental Policy Commons, Natural RMeichsouraelc eJ. EWceonomicber s Commons, Natural Resources Management and Policy Commons, and the PIoowlaic Syta Dte eUsinign,versit Ayn, malysijw@is, asandtate .Eeduvaluation Commons TheSee nex tompc page forle addte bitioniblaiol agruthorapshic information for this item can be found at https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/ nrem_pubs/306. For information on how to cite this item, please visit http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/ howtocite.html.

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Natural Resource Ecology and Management at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Natural Resource Ecology and Management Publications by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Threats to freshwater fisheries in the United States: perspectives and investments of state fisheries administrators and Agricultural Experiment Station directors

Abstract Freshwater fisheries provide human benefits e( .g., food, recreation) but are increasingly threatened by climate change, invasive species, and other stressors. Our purpose was to survey fisheries administrators from state fisheries agencies and Agricultural Experiment Stations (AESs) about their perceptions of, and resource investment toward threats to freshwater fisheries in the United States. Our rationale for studying these two types of fisheries administrators simultaneously was to inform state fisheries professionals about the fisheries relevance of AESs, elevate the profile of fisheries within AESs, and promote mutually beneficial state agency–AES partnerships. Survey respondents generally agreed that recreational, socioeconomic, and ecological services of fisheries were more important than nutritional and commercial benefits. The greatest perceived fisheries threats were water quality/quantity impairment, land‐use change, and invasive species—but, interestingly, not climate change. State fisheries agencies invested more personnel and finances into issues rated as less important but more controllable (e.g., fish production, habitat management) than issues rated as more important but larger in scale and more difficult to control (e.g., water quality/quantity, invasive species). Our research underscores the importance of ensuring that state agencies can address long‐term, socio‐ecologically critical management issues (e.g., climate change) amid budgetary constraints. We call for state agencies to collaborate with new partners (e.g., AESs) to mitigate fisheries threats by expanding fisheries management to more fully encompass terrestrial and human systems; promoting receptiveness to novel research/management ideas; actively predicting, monitoring, and planning for future stressors; and enhancing fisheries social‐ecological resilience.

Disciplines Aquaculture and Fisheries | Environmental Policy | Natural Resource Economics | Natural Resources Management and Policy | Policy Design, Analysis, and Evaluation

Comments This is a manuscript of an article published as Carlson, Andrew K., William W. Taylor, Michael T. Kinnison, S. Mažeika P. Sullivan, Michael J. Weber, Richard T. Melstrom, Paul A. Venturelli et al. "Threats to freshwater fisheries in the United States: perspectives and investments of state fisheries administrators and Agricultural Experiment Station directors." Fisheries (2019). doi: 10.1002/fsh.10238. Posted with permission.

Authors Andrew K. Carlson, William W. Taylor, Michael T. Kinnison, S. Mažeika P. Sullivan, Michael J. Weber, Richard T. Melstrom, Paul A. Venturelli, Melissa R. Wuellner, Raymond M. Newman, Kyle J. Hartman, Gayle B. Zydlewski, Dennis R. DeVries, Suzanne M. Gray, Dana M. Infante, Mark A. Pegg, and Reggie M. Harrell

This article is available at Iowa State University Digital Repository: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/nrem_pubs/306 This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. 10.1002/fsh.10238 doi: lead todifferences version between this andthe ofPleasec Version Record. been and throughtypesetting, proofreadingwhich may thecopyediting, process, pagination This article undergone has for and buthas accepted been not review publication fullpeer IA.Management, Ames, WeberMichael J. Natural Resource Resources| Michael T. Behavior, Sustainability, ofFisheriesand Department Wildlife and Ecology,Biology, Evolutionary and TaylorWilliam W. [email protected]. Behavior, Sustainability, ofFisheriesand Department Wildlife and Ecology,Biology, Evolutionary and Andrew K. Carlson state administrators Agricultural fisheries Experiment and Stationdirectors Threats the tofreshwaterin United States: fisheries investments perspectives of and Articletype : Feature Accepted S. Article Ma ž eika East Lansing,MI East 115 ManlyBuilding, Miles Rd., Harrison 1405S.

Kinnison Shiermeier Olentangy WetlandShiermeier Research River Park, P. P. Sullivan s,

|

IowaState University, of Natural Ecology Department and Resource

Columbus, OH. Columbus, | |

Michigan State University, Center for Systems IntegrationMichigan and State University, for Center Systems Michigan State University, Center for Systems IntegrationMichigan and State University, for Center Systems |

Un

|

The OhioState University, andNatural School ofEnvironment i versity ofBiology School and ofMaine, Ecology, .

East Lansing,East MI School of Environment and School of ite this articleite this as Orono, ME.

48824

. Email: Email:

This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. Behavior, Sustainability, o Department DanaInfante M. Resources, OH. Columbus, Suzanne M.Gray Sciences, Dennis DeVries R. GayleZydlewski B. Morgantown, WV. Kyle Hartman J. Conservation Biology, St. Raymond Newman M. NE. Melissa Wuellner R. P IL.Chicago, Richard T. Melstrom Accepted Articleaul A.Venturelli

Auburn, AL Auburn, East Lansing,MI East

| |

West Virginia University, Division of VirginiaWest University, Division Michigan State University,Integration CenterMichigan for and Systems |

|

The Ohio State University,The Natural ofEnvironment and School | Ball

Auburn University, School of Fisheries, University, SchoolAuburn of

| |

University of Maine, School of Marine Maine,University Sciences, School of | . University of NebraskaUniversity atBiology, of Department Kearney, of

Loyola University Chicago, InstituteLoyola University Sustainability ofEnvironmental Chicago, | Uni State University, Department Paul, MN.

. versity Department and Minnesota, Fisheries, Wildlife, of of

f Fisheriesand Wildlife and Ecology,Biology, Evolutionary and

of Biology, Muncie, Forestry Resources, and Natural

Aquaculture &Aquaculture Aquatic Orono, ME. Orono, IN .

Kearney,

, This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. more fully new partners (e.g., climate change) state agencies quality/quantity, species). invasive issues rated aslarger important but more rated morefish production, ascontrollable lessimportant(e.g., but climate change quality/quantity nutritional recreational, mutuallyagency beneficial state the fisheries AESs,elevate relevance of theand fisheries AESs, promote profile within of fisheries administrators threats to (AESs) Stations Experiment was tosurvey increasingly threatened Abstract Technology, Reggie Accepted Article Mark A. Freshwaterfisheries humanfood, benefits provide (e.g., M. Pegg freshwaterfisheries

and commercial encompass Harrell socioeconomic College Park, MD. College Park, fisher can

. |

University of NebraskaUniversityof S impairment amid tate

address | AESs University of Maryland, DepartmentScienceUniversity ofEnvironmental ofMaryland, and ies administrators

fisheries

budgetary constraints. terrestrial by )

to long simultaneously climate changeclimate

benefits. , land ,

mitigate about their and ecological services in the UnitedStates. agencies invest - term

–

and human systems; and humansystems; AES partnerships. AES partnerships. - use change, and invasivespeciesand use change,

Our research Our , The greatestThe

fisheries socio

from statefisheriesagencies and - perceptions of Lincol

in

, invasive species,and other, invasive was to - ecologically (e.g.,critical issues management and (e.g., more scale difficult control water to

We ed th n, School of Natural Resources, Lincoln,n, School ofNatural Resources, NE.

reats by underscore call for more person inform statefisheries professionals about inform perceived

Our Surveyr of promoting novel receptiveness to ,

rationalefor studying these and resource toward investment fisheries

state agenc expanding

s fisheries

espondents the nel andfinances nel into recreation

were importance of — habitat management) than

ies tocollaborate with fisheries managementfisheries to

threats but

more important more stressors A

generally agreed , interestingly, gricultural ) but

were w

. are ensuring that Our purpose

issues two two ater

than

not types that

This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. 2009− United States effects function Aquatic and survival invasive species) sedimentation, organic/ their understand ( settlement Furthermore, f on land resilience, fish output recreational fishing that supportlocal, regional American Introduction stressors; research/ Acceptede.g., cultural services Article

fisheries 2100 . and 800,000 supported jobs over , often before et otherof changesecosystems in parts al.2016). manifest (Colburn Considering Fishlongricha andfisheries have andhistory UnitedStates, from early inthe Forexample, t , stressors

management and decreasing

and enhancing fisheriesand enhancing social subsistence fisheri subsistence and employment ; Jones etal. 2013 ; Jones stressors ,

and

range ( ish Sullivan et al.2019 et Sullivan populations can populations

affect indirectly via can can are a

s

in the UnitedStates the ecological goods and services that fisheriesand goods servicesprovide,the ecological important to that itis

that from from

reduce fisheries production by fisheriesproductionreduce impairing , human health and, human well ideas he

inorganic and pollution) critical food fish and fish

biodiversity are estimated $101 million to $7.1billion to $101 million (inFY2015 dollars ,

;

and national (Hughes economies 2015). while currently es activ ) . Locally,. signal unsustainable human signal unsustainable to today’s large aquatic and terrestrial aquatic and terrestrial aquatic biota ely

offering many ). cost source I predicting, ndividual (Ormerod et al.(Ormerod et2010) transforming freshtransforming

- was at valued of climat (ASA 2013). costs ecological resilience.ecological , drive trade patterns, and tradepatterns, drive being can directly directly - aquatic scale recreationalscale stressor interactions (e.g.,stressor monitoring e changee fisheriesstream on impacts other

be as as high , food webfood As sentinels of habitat via

US societalenvironmental benefits and stressors water and coastal ecosystemscoastalwater and

$115 billion dollars$115 billion ineconomic changes in

activities occurring , with and planning for impairment

control; ecosystem $95 to $911 $95 to$911 (e.g., (e.g., severe and commercial For influence growth social land Lynch et al.2016

socioeconomic instance, i instance,

(

structure Nõges e Nõges climate changeclimate and over the period - - use ecological million , reproduction future human

change, in waterand t al.2016 fisheries n 2011,

and per yearper Native Native

in the and a ). ,

). , This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. Acceptedagricultural and chains therebyenhance supply fo centers playfreshwateran important rolein the diversity of that merge agencies play stakeholders recreational including anglerscommercial fishers. and managing Clean Water Act, etc. U.S. societies organizations (e.g., fisheries state, federal, andtribal agencies; academic institutions; Articleannual Lamprey LaurentianLakes, Great the estimated (i.e., terrestrial in and aquatic) 2012; Eby et al.2014 on coldwaterfisheries stream, lake,reservoir) (i.e., river, economic and Mendelsohn losses (Pendleton and survival fishes ofwarmwater inawarming as calculated for federal agencies havesome inlan ly(Rothlisberger al.2012), et Agricult S whose

ustainable that are resilient to that areresilient

Petromyzon marinus Petromyzon

annual most most the

( the primary mission scientific and many societal of scientific missions institutions NGOs social ural Experiment Stations (AESs)ural Stations Experiment fisheries and aquaticfisheries in resources North Carolina North

losses central fisheries ) ) ), state naturalresource), state - ) . ecological benefits

Moreover, t and public stakeholdersand of of role in $5.4 billion due toinvasive fishes$5.4 billion

estimated social managem , D the

is developing fisheries

reissenid m

to - United States ecological perturbations he fisheries managem develop knowledge toimprove naturalresource and including

d fisheries the oversightEndangered (via Act, Species environmental andenvironmental economiccosts ent cost of (Ahn et al.(Ahn 2000).Although et that requires and implementing freshwater fisheriesand freshwater implementing policies ussels

agencies 1998 managing well

effects on fisherieseffects on production

climate may partiallyclimate offset to create andto maintain

are based at od production and well societal the publictrust - ), collaboration among many institutions collaboration among institutions many ) functioning

estimated at $120 billion per yearestimated per at $120billion is between $138 and $800 million million is betweenand $800 $138 the

are ent. AESs

total aquatic invasive species (e.g.,Sea

will likelywill severe be U the primaryentities .S. Land .S. Grant universities (Paukertal. 2016). et

(Pimentel et al. 2005). (Pimentel et al. cost fisheries provid , with

are scientific researchare scientific of climate changeof climate effects and

In cases, most the fisheries the non the public of increased growth increased ir -

governmental projected invasive species primary .

(

charged with

Jacobson et al. etJacobson e. and human being

Although to optimize

state In the , with

at also

This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. Acceptedinclude agencies conflicts and AESs ortheir between broad Natural Service) Resources Conservation organizations knowledge and serve to as barriers However, with particular emphasis resource policy and management inthe UnitedStates No.NC1189Multistate members ofAES an Habitat Partnership) regionally(e.g., Midwes Articleinstance,federal fisheries state andagencies toimproveengagementexist the focused fisheries and Agriculture [ Management)and the Research (e.g.,Aquaculture, Service programs Water Availab management include and fishproduction ranchers, local, national state,regional, and

stakeholder In ofan state the agencies idealpriorities world, within (rather than across)state (ratherwithin boundaries than

research, and

differences in

aquacultur (e.g.,U.S.

resources NIFA

audiences management, and conservation . effective effective

Specific initiatives whereby initiatives Specific

to pursue shared resourceto pursue interests multi the United States Department ofAgriculturethe (USDA) Regional ] ) ). ).

, ists t Glacial Lakes Glacial and Partnership) t

goals methodologies and Fish Service, andWildlife on

whose (e.g. Together state research

. the t on topics suchas productivity, soil partnerships. On the other handOn the other ,

personnel, equipment) Aquaculture goal tounderstand is hreats posed by productivity of fish stocks ofcommonproductivity concern fish of levels. , state fisheries agenciefisheries, state project ( AES scientists AES scientists to On one hand, On one

implement ecosystem implement and Centers , barriers to effective, barriers collaboration ma to

USDA NIFAUSDA climate change climate and invasive academic partners AESs AESs . betweenagencies AESs and state Efforts are ofbothentities typically , but mechanisms for multistate , butmechanismsmultistate for National Fisheries Marine Service,

of the USDA National Ins National of the USDA amid stakeholders

how toachieve and . support fish and and state often Indeed nationally (e.g., National FishnationallyNational (e.g.,

s and AESsare s collaborate eco AESs would be aligned. AESs wouldbealigned. agencies ility work closelywith farmers, Project No. Project logical and social constraints and logical , authors of this study this are, authors of pest management, pest management, , - , differences inthe , differences

based solutions and solutions based

and Watershed and Watershed eries researchand often collaborate often

sustainable fisheriessustainable

with and AESs canand

key contributorskey to MICL04161,

Agricultural conservation species titute ofFoodtitute . For livestock, may . share

y

reach

,

This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. based toaddressstate knowledge study important to promote about both investments ofstate agencyadministrators were mirroredby as membersposition ofAESproject, an productivity toward to fisheries policy and freshwater respective barriers to holistically manage land totheir similar expertise own management fisheries for theoryand practice of organizational disparities fisheriesDepartment agencies, e.g., allocation

Acceptedunderstand how Article hiring and promoting state agencyadministrators the fisheries relevance ofAESs Given our of themission AES freshwater freshwater

mutually fisheries beneficial agency

, of resources for fisheriesoffor resources AESs

in definingunderstanding or existing ecosystems and and ecosystems collaborative , particularly climate change species., particularly and invasive

( but not communication. , administrators they h

fisheries managementamid current fisheries andfuture threatsto these entities simultaneously these because state management inthe UnitedStates

agriculture and food production systems),personnel and overseeing food agriculture production with fisheries

ave not been described in detail date, notbeenave to particularly described in to in relation fisheries fisheries scapes fisheries management fisheries stressors

while interacting other disciplinary with to professionals

and waterscapes. and production and are more likely to haveare more training science likely toinfisheries and For instance,

and - agency

level scientists s and and

such as AES directors AES directors of Quality Environmental , partnerships partnerships multi (2) (2) natural resource water we evaluated w we administrators elevate the pr elevate state researchproject

at c AES directors limate change limate -

resource resource

their respectivetheir universities

management programs

problem Although i n to: (1)to: volving , the management ofile of fisheries within AESs ofile offisheries within hether the perceptions and resourcehether theperceptions perceive issues, s both

between , or

primary

inform statefisheries professionals thereare

are , and

AES

state yet impediments to impediments to develop and apply and develop , Pollution , Pollution Secondarily, Secondarily, implying generally

invasive species

they and allocate resourcesand to promote sustainable to promote sustainable

agencies andagencies directors state purpose ofthisstudy waspurpose

opportunities (often regulated (often by non are agencies their compatibilitytheir not trained in not often often Control AgenciesControl . . Conversely, due toourunique We surveyedWe cross responsible AES

. evidence and

for - s , their their . I . ,

and and the t was t state - (3) ) , - This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. Acceptedcurrentand optimal ecological, conditions. andsocioeconomic fisheriesdistinct management priorities inareas the of resources toward, 2017 Salvelinus rangingsocioeconomicrecreational and importance the primaryof concern for fish species state to protect inthe resources aquatic emphasis of ecological admin fisheries future amidcurrent and stressors. trends for fisheriesthatare in freshwater productive sustaining management informative Articlein the identifyassess and AES directors collaborations. tohelpfosteragenciesandarean AESsseparately, ideal position in affiliated Finally, Landand of service mission Grant universities, agenciesand AESs for collaborationsthatand advance management. fisheriesresearch Moreover, ). We also istrators wouldratefisheries from recreational as important being most United States W many AESs. Thus, fisheries AESs. Thus,fisheries e surveyed

, perspectives (rather viewpoints)perspectives given nutritional thancommercial the or Salmo most most

university fisheries collegeswithin university programshoused ofagriculture are (

N hypothesized that

, and = 1 of each= per 1of state) state agenciesfish habitat onangling andtheir manda threats to threats

the factors that the factors . both state agency We We state fisheries agency state fisheries Oncorhynchus playan anticipated wouldilluminateresults thatsurvey freshwater fisheries and related important rolein resource allocation resource

state agency public trust (Lamb andCoughlanpublic trust(Lamb 1993 facilitate fisheries or hinder

spp. about

;

W In particular,we that hypothesized lead faculty Tringali et al. 2015; Lobón et al.2015; Tringali agencyadministrators

e predicted that their perception their administrators wouldperceive,administrators and allocate

with which administrators in a achieving ,

many whom of

(e.g., (i.e., personnel, funding) regionally

United States

black b black many of

the tripart

administrator administrator s

( productivity and of variable manner e.g., directors, ass freshwater

would be thosewith would work with statefisherieswork with

synergistic synergistic the authors authors the with differentclimatic, Micropterus ite research, teaching, ‐ Cerviá and Cerviá Sanz state and ). We expectedWe that). percep ted responsibility

fisheries , economic, and

would largely state agency chiefs) state fisheries , reflecting agency sustainability are affiliated.

tions of tions spp., t national typical

with to and - AES wide rout

-

This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. a they states w anonymous (i.e., both others (e.g., land questionnairescomparison toenable the of importance these perceived of species tofulf change amid curr directors questionnaires and Methods freshwater resources advance framework th foundation for threats a similar toagency in manner administrators. administrators,freshwater wouldperceivefisheries and investresources fisheries toward AES directors, important threats, smaller allocationFinal threats). for less important correspond Acceptednonymity was particularly important because Article AES directors

preferred notto preferred questionnaires W (e.g., increases in air/water increases(e.g., precipitation in and temperatures variability) as socio

about ent and futureent ( stressors e

optional). In all optional). addition, emailed with at ill specific goals specificill multi ofour -

ecologically understanding fisheries priorities with fisheriespriorities understanding but living in the sameliving states and in the state agency/AESstate characteristics state

- their participants’ use cha

were in

and explained and explained SurveyMonkey® questionnaires

. answer fisheries

the rankings ofperceived threats fundamentally asking similar,

nge,water quality 50 U.S.states sustainable or withdraw from thesurveyany from or withdraw time. at

agencies, AESs, names were not Table 1 Table that participants

participation was voluntary, confidential, fisheries i n

, the f state research ultimately project,we designed S1, S2 S1, impairment facing all required, and identification of and their identification respectiverequired, state agency state and and

were notified thatthey in concertof users thenation’s in withother and and ). of

the same challenges allied organizations can While weWhile initially focused on climate (i.e., large 2016

in their perceptions offreshwater Our hope study isthat this establishes to state agency ). a cohesive state state

An

. The surveys used

administrators introductory accompanied letter fisheries r

resource allocationresource for human administrators and ly, we hypothesized we ly, that

agency We believeWe that as state agencyas state could skip questions skip could -

stressors relativestressors to environmental and and leverage to

separate administrators and invasive AES and fisheries directors AES

the a

This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. universities affiliated the researchers participating with thatsurvey toensure in the study developed conducted by IRB1436e, i052805; #x16 wereapproved ReviewInstitutional Michigan Board State University by (IRB the #x16 the purposes of ourstudy. on these and topics wasfisheries forachie sufficient state comparing AESs agencies and staffingand use budgets, and th change,invasive species), change, landuse agency fisheriesAESs: agencies and differences, surveys both but these questionswerenot applicable tostate f Similarly, AESdirectors asked we about AES (i.e., questions3and 4 was insigh chemical Hence, waterquality/quantitydonot. andphysical respective states, intheir AESs it management.For whereas instance, overfisheries some state agencies havejurisdiction and duties ofstatemissions responded tothe survey February 2017. identifiable may provide reluctant felt have to

Acceptedreatening (to aquaticorganisms Article The 21 structuredWe thetwosurveys tful to surveyadministrators fisheriestful to about quality/quantity state water jurisdiction the . Survey r

- surveys personnel question ( In total, eminder emailsevery eminder were sent

; Table S1 ; Table in consultation withcommunicationsin consultation and survey from specialists s 27 27

. from the university state agency state yielded

- state fisheries agencies AESsrelativefisheries and tofisheriesresearch and 1437e, ensures i052806),which thathuman of a fisheries ), but these questions were not necessary in theAES were survey.), butthese questions in notnecessary

the most important information most for comparingthe state eco hypothetical 25% budget increase. Compatible information 25%budgethypothetical increase. Compatible detailed - systems, economies, andsystems, humanhealth economies, un

administrator) and 19 andadministrator) slightly differently to slightly differently iversity interactio

ch responses iftheirrespe names orresponses each state’s iefs (54%) iefs

is ethical and - specific staffingand funding specific isheries agencies. Despite isheries 20 and 11 AES directors ( and 11AESdirectors

most important fishspeciesmost days between November 2016an

ns,

protects individuals’ rights.protects individuals’ - acknowledge distinct the question (AES director) sur aquatic stressors (e.g.,aquatic stressors climate

s ubject researchubject minor minor

ctive states were levels ), fisherie 22 %) structural

(Table S2)

and s We We veys - most most ving ving d

, This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. Acceptedquantitative categories (e.g., 0 each categ qualitative calculating of thepercentage (e.g., human ecological, health). economic, analyzed We questions by tothese responses recreationally, ecologically), and important),which the specific waysfishspeciesare(e.g., in commercially, important importance fisheries offisheriesvery somewhat and (e.g., threats important, important, and methods each freshwater stressors external stakeholders) (e.g., ArticleAES directors research and insight into religion, tradit the “cultural” offisheries importance stemming as that and each important thespecies to aremost that state’s fisheries relative importance of directors comprehensivelycharacterizing questions wereyet enou succinct, detailed management light in ofmultiple state ions of humanthrough groupsions of social commonlyexpressed and number of employees,number of Many the survey of questions

etc. etc. that regarding threats tofreshwater fisheriesregarding threats agenc how management We alsoWe assessed they use about y these

and AES .

demographic, In way,we this ory. We followed We thesame including procedure forory. questions

to to understand to threats affect the administratorthreats affect the the various rolesthe develop andimplement

importance.

surveyed employee budget interactions responsibilities, allocation, with state agency –

perceptions of 20, 21

the perspectives of the perspectives of

the typthe programmatic , the logistics ofthe logistics attempted to freshwater stressors

– produced ra 50, or 51 Finally

of nging from from nging e ofthreats

gh for needed toprovide information administrators and AES directors who administrators and AESdirectors fisheries

current andfuturecurrent , we asked , we

qualitative responses,qualitative includingthe – strategies forstrategies 100 fisheries 100 employees). . ,

acquire Surveys about the withquestions began and operational

(e.g., recreational, ecological, cultural) their broad to missions state agency how imposed by aquaticinvasivespecies - defined from the values, beliefs, attitudes,from beliefs, and the values, . state state agency

comprehensive inf

and director agencies and advancingfisheries

(Table 1, S1, S2) (Table 1,S1,

fisheries administrators and AES administrators

details of their workplaces of details art, literature,art, music,

administrators and stressors to gain to stressors - defined areas of the For AES ormation about

specific questions s . selected

We definedWe address research

This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. administrators), fisheries General importance offisheries Results sample size not conduct regional analyses analysis, regions to incontrast respondents Virginia)Texas, West Dakota, s Dakota)and South agency Bureauaand (2015) used s thermal guilds differedof the regions inthese U.S. particular, we states state agency director approach climate involving quantitative rankings Accepted Articleouth states todetermine ifperceptions ofclimateand change,other invasive stressorsspecies, ern USA that The majority of administrators

ch perspectives and Discussion Discussion and were important or verywere important important for facilitated evaluationand comparison of ange, invasive species,ange, invasive theyrepresented,

and

who administrators

). responsescompared (i.e., We grouped states We by “ ecological (89%), and insufficient regional representation.

identified theirsufficiently states thus identified and were representative for statistical generally

related tofreshwater ecosystem . The n . The in state fisheriesagency

n Mann orth

(60%) so outh orth coldwater/coolwater inthe n for

ern states with fewer respondents (e.g.,with fewer respondents northeast,w we country (e.g., priority of of order –

ern andern s ern states W land survey r survey

analyzed voluntarily of h itney state agency agency state - use econo given underlying diff region

(i.e., Indiana, Kansas,N Nebraska,(i.e., Michigan, esponses outh U

change) (i.e., Arkansas,Delaware,Tennessee, Oklahoma, this subset of the subset this

mic (81%) mic Test

adm

” as defined” as by the answered the optional question identifyinganswered the optionalquestion the the following reasons: the ern statesern

to inistrators inistrators state agency , we calculatedrankings median administrators and innorthern southern

of

compare

management AES director .

e Most Most aquatic stressors such as ecosystem

ach orth erences inclimate and fish indicated survey data bysurvey data median made up made ern USA, inthe warmwater state agency

administrator and United States

in the s

due to due recreational (96%recreational of responses

that 37.5% ofthe poolof 37.5% est United States United freshwater freshwater

administrators ern USA a relatively U.S.

Census

of AES region state . This ). orth We did We .

small small M . In ost This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. Acceptedhabitats identified as important Perch Lobón rangingsocio recreational and bass andt therefore important species fish Most important responsibilities. recreational, ecological and economic, but theyRiver, Gulf ofMexico),consider be evidently itto lessimportant than the Articlemay recognizethenutritionalsignificance Mississippi fisheries intheirregions of (e.g., (Lynch et al.2002) Pacific No importance regions greater with offisheries in skewed the Midwest towards andSouth and ecological purposes focusresponsibilities on administrators, these perspectives perspective also considered

Perca flavescens ‐ Cerviá and Sanz 2017) andCerviá Sanz The five f

for these species ,

rout were clustered into commonly associated groups (e.g commonlyclusteredassociated into groups (i.e., highest rated) rthwest) rthwest) (78%) . Although freshwater freshwater

ish s , but percentages were lower for cultural, butpercentagesfor (26%) were and lower (59%) nutritional .

where nutritional benefits nutritional where

most representedmost Moreover societal valuessocietal p

ecies thatecies ) and cold) by nutritional nutritional .

fish populations andfish populations habitats for primarily recreational, economic, However, we (e.g., Gr northern, state agencystate fisheries important or veryfisheries important orimportant from ascientific

in their respective states . economic importance ofthese , As expected state

state water (e.g.,water benefits were ag in fisheries ency values thatrepresentvalues their primary management recognize that the di recognize that administrators administrators — survey less emphasized byless may not

of fisheries were not unimportant to to of fisheries were notunimportant eat Lakes, and eat coastalstates) , administrators administrators coolwater Brook Trout might beexpectedmight tobehighly more valued

subsi agency response

have nutritional fullycaptured the s tence fishing

from were

administrators (e.g., Walleye(e.g., s

(Table 2) ., black b Salvelinus fontinalis

in the Midwest ands stribution ofourstribution respondents areas taxonomically diversetaxonomically fishes state containing and aquaculture

, ass agencies whose mandated (Tringali et al.2015; (Tringali reflecting thewide

designatedas Sander vitreus Sander ) where feasible. . Incontrast,.

suitable thermal ) state agency taxa outh

research and were (e.g., (e.g.,

the , Yellow ern USA were

-

Black most most —

,

This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. Acceptedorganizational and expertise resources. developingrobust solutions scientifically provide a production (41%), important threats, fish disease/ their invasive species (93%) and ecosystems toaquatic Threats factors uses. shaping their utilitarian depend more on Articleover commercial usessuggests sustainability and nutritional that freshwater fisheri of andnutritional commercial ratings. 1993) conserveand protect living freshwater inthepublic resources trust nutrition from ecological (68% agency highest considered warmwateras species such aquatic habitat

respective states

likely - The majority of Nearly all administrators also rated al basis for understanding basis for

(31 more more

health (63% produce

fishes %) an

factors shaping public important important state in contrast to and impairment were d commercial (17%) d

( of administrators of

high Table Table inadequate hatchery fisheries were important or very important threatswere important orveryimportant state

of important orvery importan er indicated that highest in warmer b administrators lack fisheries

3 rec ).

(100% inadequatefisheries research(45%), agency A smaller majority of A smaller majority reational, ecological, andcultural

b threat prioritization instate fisheriesthreat prioritization agencies ass Emphasis Emphasis

agency Midwest and Catfish Channel of administrators of

) and (62% cultural and institutional

administrators (97%) viewpoints involving ) - and fish production

administrators administrators on recreational, ecological, ern climate change - rated fishesrated

and s

cross . t State for recreational

state agency state

), water quality/quantity(96%),and outheastern states. valuation resources ofnatural thanon -

agency partnerships that leverageagency partnerships ) perspectives,incontrast to

agencies’ dutiesto mandated Ictalurus punctatus (29%; indicated

were indicated (60%) to

Table 3 importance important/very important

(Lamb and(Lamb Coughlan freshwater ecosystems administrators inadequate wild inadequate

purposes as that that

important orvery and culturaland roles )

land . their state’s their state’s These findings

ratings . Many

- were and change use perceived

- es may

fish

than state

in

This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. species Bighead Carp wer identified as posinggreatest the threatsin diversity inthe five Lynchet al.2016 warmwater species (e.g., climate change ( Salvelinus confluentus growth andrange coldwater abundance,contraction) onfishes certain (e.g.., has that some scientificin support concerns bodies arealready climate climate change change This climate change climate change half of climate changewas as perceived less invasive species Accepted etJacobson al.2012;Murdoch 2013; andIn Eby Power al.effects 2014). et contrast, Article e the most represented groupe represented themost finding state agency

- Collectively then across Collectively, (IPCC and 23% of and 23% vulnerable fishes arevulnerable fishes prevalent relatively

(e.g., c ould reflect realould reflect or Hypophthalmichthys nobilis Hypophthalmichthys

2018)

hatchery are neutral or positive (e.g.,are neutralorpositive abundance, increased rangefor expansion) certain could greater have impacts as as

as b

very compared of important, to0% “somewhat ofa important”issue,17% ). relatively warm

a veryimportant managementissue fisheries administrators invasive administrators from both

, state agency

as well as geographic differences in , Arctic char - fish production fish

b lack

aquatic that organisms b orth

ass , with , perceived

administrators

, fish communities are, fish communities warmwater, primarily climate change isexerting negativeeffects (e.g., decreased mentioning S. alpinus ) in ern and s

important than invasive species important than

15% of the southern UnitedStates the southern , n

their respective states eedmore for

on and Silver Carp regional outh , Cisco , Cisco the n state agency state other other orthern orthern

in

n compared tos ern states ern orth

both

state variability invasive Coregonus artedi s ern outhern (Figure administrators 1b).

fisheries where research

the n the

fisheries n

fish thermal guilds fish thermal and thes orthern , t

H. molitrix H. administrators identif here was

orth fishes

in the outh

)

(Table 4 (Table (Figure

ern andern s predominate.

agency ( administrators outh Robillard and 2006 Fox

ern states (e.g.,

effect (Figure 1b)

high ) innorthern latitudes as threat coldwater/coolwater, ern states ern ) 1 . Invasive f . Sea Lamprey Sea a). administrators administrators outh

s ofclimate taxonomic taxonomic Bull Trout . In contrast, , where

For instance,

ern statesern

This notion - and other inducing .

ying rated rated Although Although ishes water

of

,

rated

;

This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. use changeand toleastfollows (most important): water quality/quantity collectively andinthe Aquatic threatsnow interdependence individuallyand Olden2016) 2008;Nõges etal. importance. invasive species human for health and wel invasive species and seriousaquatic canhave human for consequences food production economic ofaquatic repercussions invasi ( human health. administrators (19%) economic inducing their respective in aquaticorganisms states threats the to mussel spicatum state agency Carp Common Accepted Articlee.g., l beingMooney (Pejchar and loss ofbiodiversity,loss alterations ofecosystem function,infoodwebs) shifts and State The majority of Dreissena bugensis , hydrilla

threats ranked management fisheries issues Moreover, interactions between invasive species and speciesMoreover, interactions climate between invasive change ir state’s freshwater4). (Table ecosystems administrators identified fisheries

Ingeneral, administrator Cyprinus carpio aquatic

simultaneously via of these and these other stressors.of

(86% of (86% of Hydrilla verticillata Hydrilla

perceived agency

habitat habitat state agency administrators)ecological and , zebra mussel a

dministrators dministrators impairment

future future

, Round , Round

amplify importanceaddressing the of these species 2009 research and managementresearchrootedand inthe approaches administrators

), reflecting a

plants (e.g., Eurasianplants (e.g., watermilfoil how )

perspectives align and Goby ve species ( ve species D. polymorpha

(2), aquaticinvasivespecies (3) state agency state 19% across then

to Neogobius melanostomus Neogobius

present according totheir current as importance categorized disconnect indicated thatindicated Panlasigui et al. 2018). However,Panlasigui etal. 2018). posed

important orvery threats important to administrators that perceive

orth (median rank = 1, scale=rank 1−8) (median 1, ) as species threats

ed

important orveryimportant

ern and s with Dreissenid mussels (i.e.,Dreissenid q mussels between

(93%). (93%). the five greatestthe five threat estimates ofthe impactsestimates posinggreatest the outh these these

the the F ). Myriophyllum Myriophyllum ew ew ern states ern Moreover, , importance of issues fish state agency

(Rahel and (Rahel

27% 27% , land

uagga -

of - This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. respond and negatively reduce tofloods survival, and state agency aquaculture warmerwaterand growing longer for areconducive seasons (or effects perceived) the in s on climate and land perspectives 0.029 two more important than s management currently issue South forimportant issue Southern administrators. represented the third more for important issues contrast, hatchery s for Land only management (6) disease/ outh outh

Accepted Article , n and orthern administratorsorthern and signi fisheries research and wild fisheries research and - ern states ern states use r anked climate change Overall, state fisheriesagencyregionally administrators had heterogeneous heal climate change climate change and aquatic change - tailed; Figure2). th (5) (USDA 1995) administrators regarding issue population sustainability (e.g., certain fishes coldwater of species ). (Mann Such , - s to fish production fisheries research(5), wil - use change inthe use - most important issue for importantissue most

outhern administrators (Mann – dissimilarities suggest dissimilarities

state agencystate the relative fisheries management(e.g.,greaterthe priority issues focus of Whitney adaptation/mitigation s .

outhern than Overall, regardless ofregion

n over the next decade,over the next

orth adaptation/mitigation habitat fish production U ern states ,

= 30, water quality/quantity administrators

climate change ficantly more important in then important in moreficantly impairment n orth d water levels d water n n orthern administrators. orthern 1

= than thes than ern states ern

d fish production (5), hatcheryd fish

State agencyState that climate changethat climate

n (7) n 2

orthern administrat , which does bode not , which wellthegrowth, for = 12, exchanged order in positions of importance

. was important management themost issue The importance these of over thedecade next although n

as the – appears tobe a

outh Whitney

versus ) if projected climatic warming P = 0.016two ,

ern states least fisheries important administrators and

hatchery hatchery orthern administrators r administrators orthern U fisheries research

= 33.5, Aquatic species invasive may be having may be ors and the secondors and the

(IPCC 2018), where (IPCC 2018), relatively low priority for - orth tailed; Figuretailed; 2). fish production fish production fish

was nearlywas identical; n ern statesern in the North andthe 1

production fisheries = fish production n 2

and those that = 12,

tended tobe tended greaterreal

than the ated itas

in the -

and P most most and In =

. This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. Acceptedagencies Quality, Agency) Control Minnesota Pollution of state fisheries state agency employees andbudgetEmployee allocation responsibilities quality/quantityand climate change. managementcontrol capacity to administrators donothave theautho change personnel Article(59%). aquatic i university commonlyadministrators),regarding research personnel, most fisheries (96% of Agency occurring time shorter scales. over adaptation/mitigation planning tobalance climate change agencies extremes

- - Most Most Incontrast, oneAll but adaptation/mitigation level environmental qualityenvironmental Michigan Environmentallevel agenciesDepartment (e.g., of university interactions nvasive (74%), species hatchery .

and w have have

are

on projects related to on projectsrelated , with37%

administrators (22%) agencies workedfor that hadjurisdictionover both state realized ( realized an opportunity to an opportunity ater quantity/ by developing by

fisheries few state managing Hunt etal. 2016; Hunt

state agency fisheries fisheries

agency quality (19%). adaptive research

— water

actively preparefor 51 agency

large

– administrators (71%) ,

100 rity toindependently address but

administrators reported universityadministrators interacting with

This quality/quantity(35% - Whitney

scale, often long often scale, the majoritydidnot,reflecting (78%) theprevalence

employees fish production (67%),fish production and administrator

long finding

- that work separately fis from state that term and managementand et al.2016).

may

and 34% long aquatic those with ecosystem threats

reflect the fact that most most the factreflect that reported regular interaction with

- - supervised at

term issues likewaterterm term of administrators of

having However, ,

persistent — programs involving programs much less the much less fish disease/ > 100 least 51 state state stressors such asstressors

employees. fisheries ) fisheries or state agency health health

heries climate S ome

This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. issues staff,of most whereas oth see there ground. middle islittle confront large also evident for water that quality/quantity, suggests employees) 2 an issue that issues. 2016) habitat management fish habitat research with assigned tothis butmostimportant issue, administrators Similarly which likely workedhad agencies for that administrators relative priorities ) ,

Accepted Article yet hadfor agencies either which climateadaptation/mitigation and changewater production research/ and habitat at least 11

as are the of under purview external organizations

rehabilitation projects, An even more Interestingly,

compared to , state

or

state reflect endpoints -

very few employees few very (38% scale, difficult scale, perceived

fisheries employees working on threat or or attributed todifferentattributed issues fisheries management (72%; s

a division of labor betweena division allocation

. water quality/quantity complex patterncomplex was for found In contrast,

and job duties jobduties and

agencyadministrators w ers assign ater quality/quantity agency

Alternatively, suggest thatsome might it - only to habitat

of - control or issues

1 state many administrators perceivedadministrators as

– these issues management many employeesmany 21ormore agencies (50% with of employees5 protection policies; Wills etal. 2004; policies; Wills Baumannprotection et al. associatedwith these topics

Table 5 fish production (81% offish production administrators) and fish fisheries (65%) workedagencies for only with 1

state agency of agencies 1 of with , aquatic , aquatic

included )

considered . to

to specialists to state state This relatively ofinvolvement level high agency

choose to choose corresponds themore with assigned towork be a quality/quantity state invasive species, climate change administrators workedfor agencies

fisheries andfisheries water

(e.g., state water qualityagencies)

highly important issue in

personnel

fisheries the a

– invest their personnel elsewhere; quatic invasive species invasive quatic 5 employees

survey or

relatively relatively exist instatesexist where these

(e.g., did not clearlydid not mirror the agencies either

on as . adaptation/mitigation Although Although

state and otherand larger these issues these typical hatchery operations,

unimportant quality ) . fisheries This dichotomy, practical ,

responsibilities responsibilities most most state agency state –

agencies 5 employees

actively

(Table an (44%) agencies

(Figure - scale scale .

.

in 5 , )

,

This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. Hubert and 2010) Quist and of toward issues addressed priorities ofcross measurable the need agency for accountability on issues disturbances, outbreaks disease relatively unpredictable, a general pattern. Table production (92%agencies), of fisheriesresear species (Table quality/quantity,and fisheries budgetproportion oftheir annual into AESs, NGOs) topromote healthy,fisheries productive important role changeand aquatic species for invasive arewhich twoissues which are applicable toclimate change However, (i.e.,labor theexplanation of division with latter other agencies) is

Acceptedsuch partn Article enhancing

6 related tofishproduc Althoughpersonnel there complex, investmentsare of andbudgets does a Surveyresults s indicated that ) — administrators indicated often more controllable controllable more

project outco erships. Atanyerships. rate, while

and work must closely withexternal partners(e.g., water quality agencies, 6 fish andaquatic other

not ). - Specifically, Incontrast, agency partnerships, particular with agencies

uniquely 52 , % indicated

through diffuse regulatoryresponsibility authority and for broader mes. tion andtion habitat quality

adaptation/mitigation issues under under state Investments ofpersonnel andfundingreflect may also the state state , invasions) into more, invasions)into quantifiable, , long

agencycollaborations than they would

that

agencies commonlyoftheirfish spent >5% budget on the jurisdiction of the jurisdiction that agenciesaddress haveamandate distinct to fisheries that populations tate fisheries

- data their agencies issues term state state they spent they spent -

driven decision driven environmental environmental

they deemthey important. f agencies isherie ch (56%),and

and

a . This and aquatic invasive <3 gencies

s agencies are spent < their any particula % tend and water resourcesand water

of aquatic their budget on tendency

problems (e.g., climate

habitats makingand

to steer funding to steer 1% of their budget1% of their onwater currently fish habitat fisheries agencies havean fisheries agencies allocating

Forexample, 52% controllable is understandable r charged withprotectingcharged (Decker et(Decker al.2008;

agenc invest the needthe toproduce

species management,species invest invest improvement improvement

y fewer resourcesfewer .

.

environment

away from

a small T generally hus, , short in the absence ppear tobeppear

climate invasive .

given - of term (56%; not al

This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. agency adaptation/mitigation production (15%),quality/water wateruse (8% budget), issues, activities. collectingfisheries and data administrators (7%), administrativ staff (14%), (17%),facilities equipmentresearch and (12%), outreach education (9%), staff greatestextra funds field percentagein of in anyarea(s) L disease outbreaks, (Table conce aquaticand fishdisease/ invasive species production and sustainability. authority toaddress long motivated, they may adaptation/ Hence,temptingwhile itmightclimate low investments in betopresume that factors

AcceptedBjörklund andõhmus 2015 Article - term rns

5, 6 state agency (e.g., (e.g., If administrators ranked therelative importanc

aquatic invasive (Table state fisheries

If the 25%budget hypothetical was increase issues ) suggests ) suggests mitigation (where agencies <1% 76% spent of of climate,

of their choice of their place high

3 that state ), or

e staff (5%),eand staff (3%). travel . the administrators

Importantly, resource bias could this investment be symptomatic of be

t interactions land use, waterland quality/quanti (3%). (3%). hat relatively low agencies wereagencies granteda 25% budget increase

species age value fisheries

This order of budget allocation budgetThis order generally of aligns how with completing on , ). ncies may agency For instance,

on

management between these and between these

would necessaryfacilities) having people, theresources (e.g., for agencies generally donothave

administrators administrators allocation of personnelallocation funding tothese of issues and

have difficulty addressing difficulty have a broader syndrome a broader of health

invest technician stafftechnician (30%) - the a lthough

- ( ),

ground 19% to be extra funds in fish disease/fish These ty e ofthreats

)

reported they that other change stressors climate (e.g.,

state agency state , fisheries research fish, fisheries(17%), ) are often important fisheries management

earmarkedfor fi monitoring and results indicate that

their budget) aretheir politicallybudget) health habitat projects

underfunding to freshwater fisheriesto freshwater beyond their their beyond ,

followed by managementfollowed administrators species invasions, fish invasions, species the scopeor (6%), (6%),

hinder hinder for additional spendingadditional for

would invest the would management sheries conservationsheries and c and

state agency future fisheries legal large

change (28% limate designated perceived - purview. scale,

of

.

state change

;

This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. university per similar month, many AESdirectors(73%) species economicecological for and (buthumanhealth) 4).Moreover, not reasons (Table watermilfoil, administrators commercial state overlapping ofparticular missions AESs importanceBlackBass ofand state reasons, notcommercial(20%)nutritional (11%) but or purposes. 2), primarilyfor ecological (90% recreational ofAES cultural directors), and (56%), (33%) b fisherie improving Nonetheless, AES beshould interpretedcarefully AES perspectives. toavoidmisrepresenting broader AES director res planning. quali theirwithin purview habitat, (e.g., research,fish Namely, reflects it Accepted ass and Article ty/quantityand climate change fisheries fisheries and AESdirectors administrators s. Eleven

various t

Much like

state agency /nutritional questions) /nutritional

hydrilla), mussels (e.g., and q sonnel agencies and and agencies

in rating AES directors to ults

the frequencyagency withwhichstate administrators interact with rout

director responses importa provide the

. Overall, attitudinal similarities. Overall, attitudinal and between personal interactions AES state state

species tendency of – invasive fishes Bighead (e.g., invasive and Carp), Silver AES fisheries reported thatthey fisheries

responded tothe survey, interactions address to to betheimportant fishesintheirstates most respective (Table t rout (Tringali et al. 2015; Lobónrout (Tringali 2015; et al. . agency AES directors state agency state

that faculty(e.g., , require and administra uagga and deleterious zebra most uagga mussels) as the interac focus ofAES interaction director the

toinvest resourcesadministrators inactivities likely long product were to also similar emphasis

t with t with - current andfuture tors, AESdirectorsconsidered black nt preliminary for information term

reflect reflect a

ion) rather than relatively small sample size relatively samplesize small

, large state

on fish the widespread socioeconomicthe widespread ‐ agencies at leastat onceagencies per - Cerviá and Sanz 2017), Sanz and Cerviá scale Similar responsesSimilar between

ecology state agency

adaptation/mitigation threats to freshwaterthreats to plants (e.g.,Eurasianplants issues

rather than

such as water s with s with that

This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. Accepted moretopics with immedi also investigating large broad faculty could provide Grant mission conduct suggests state agency thatcomparedadministrators, to (82% quality/quantity management financial sufficient resources agency forestry (7%), and recreation/tourism (13%), o Articleagriculture (24 directors agency AES directors specialize ineither management/ecology, fisheries aquaculture, wat or many were Forexample,whereas notuniversally similar. faculty professional directors and be )

fisheries employees, most AES directors AES most (73%) fisheries employees,

spatial scales. andlong temporal by supportand providing scientific advice .

However, survey ofAESand directors responses useful for studying researchuseful fishhabitat and for fish and other production, management, administrators, themajor reflectedadministrators, as intheir budgetary investments.

wate

would

networks necessaryfornetworks linking r quality/quantityclimate andchange research state agencystate

. pursue a different mission and generally than apursue differentand priorities mission different have %) andagriculture(21%)ahead of plant Thus allocate the largestallocate the of portion - scale, long scale, , collaborations state state ate management applications. administrators agencies withthenecessary resources

to play (100% and ofdirectors) - term issues likewater quality term ity of AESity d of

between a “verya “moderate” strong”role in or Such point to point

state agencies state

collaborations are important for particularly state agencies, andstate fisheries AESs, irectors indicated that they a ther areas Moreover,ther (3%). h

ypothetical 25%budget increase needed these tomitigate issues the existence ofcommon state agency climate have

AES Additional input fromAdditional directors input AES fisheries (16%), wildlifefisheries (16%), (16%), state state

, AESs, and fisheries , AESs,andfisheries

fewemployees (0−10) that resultingfro

directors have and climate change

change adaptation/mitigation change adaptation/mitigation fisheries administrators administrators for Most notably,Most fisheries researchat er quality. Iner quality. addition, agency m their Landbroad m have in contrast to in

water

greater capacity understanding

personnel andpersonnel administrators administrators and related supervise ; . and related AES they would This fi to animal state state nding

and

to This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. Accepteddecade. climate change comparedchange. toclimate likelygreater due immediacy tothe andresponding practicalityof toinvasive species Bighead Silver Carp Carp, tourism commercial management Although populations andhabitats foreconomic, primarilyecological recreational, and specified statements in their mission orauthorizing legislation agency the Articlesocioeconomically productive value applicationsmanagement. for fisheries yieldinga broaderfreshwater assessmentecosystem threats of and important implications fisheries and Summary freshwater stressors. bewill an important stepindevelopinga more comprehensive ofperceived picture

nutritional university —

State agency The ; Lynch et al.2002 administrators andwork their anchor around Although this

management these outcomes represent these outcomes

and Recommendations Recommendations and

purpose values values , they

- and , based

but but

could be commercial of fisheri

it wasit a

of this administrators and AESdirectors AES directorsAES . finding more commonly Our initial focus initial onclimateOur change and invasivespecies evolved into ). , was tounderstandstudy Dreissenid mussels complemented low priorityfor es (e.g., subsistence

T

likely reflects fisheries

here was regional variability was regional here intheimportance perceived of importance

an important impetus for an important impetus perceive

— . Results Results emphasize conserving Although some Although

of with state agenciesandstate AESs

multiple factors(e.g.,multiple climate lowpriority of constraints toachieving sustainable fisheries ) indicated that

pose a greater a climatepose change, threatthan increased recognitionoftheincreased and commercialand their and enhancingand how

indicated that into theirinto management activities mandated responsibilities mandated state state fisheries agency fisheriesstate

s state agency fisheries — tate agency to conserve and protect fishing ecologically and

, now and over the next and over, now the next invasive species agencies ,

aquaculture, fisheries fisheries administrators administrators nutritional outcomes administrators incorporate freshwater freshwater — often

(e.g.,

. ,

and fish

This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. Acceptedrather constraints federalagencies) fisheries fisheries emphasizi fisheries (e.g.,climate issues change, invasive waterquality/quantity)species, by support for awareness and climate changeresearch public into Cooperative Extension adaptation/mitigation, Given thata largemajority stakeholders be negatively are likelyto affected Articlescale research, underlying the fisheries and likely will require improvedand monitoring coordi between fisher behaviorand livelihoods; impaired climate climate c changeamong stakeholders agencies/AESs serve; lack the ofauthority/capacity tocontrol and long than

T negatively affects climate c here isa hange; focus on short focushange; on agencies research and fish policy, ng , fisheriesto projects managers stressors arerestricted focused often on immediate broader, broader, state large physiology, decreased fish growth, geographic decreasedphysiology, growth,range changesreduction, fish in - knowledge regarding climatewould knowledge change term relatively fisher and management action action and management n overarching , hange and hange -

AES scale long adaptation/mitigation planning, freshwater fisheries m ies agenciesies toprioritize AESs and their partnersAESs

System s , anagement ( , and their partners(e.g.,, environmental state qualityagencies, - low priority of long term such change. issues as allocationresource climate at Thus,

freshwater to meaningfullyaddress th

of AESdirectors

other(e.g., stressors - - term term

term issues) occupy a need to elevate the toelevate need of profile socio Hunt et al.2016; adaptation/mitigation planning and outreach and Rahel and Olden 2008) andOlden Rahel

fisheries ecosystems and management systems andmanagement fisheries ecosystems

climate change, theimplicationis critical posi on climate change, , thereisgrowingevidence that (82%) (82%) in and activelyand address

et et al.2016). al.2016;Paukert (Hunt education programs. Ineducation programs. greater public turn, invasive species trade organizations Whitneyet al.2016). play tion fortion translating university ese stressors n ation amongentities inv an important

likely . including Whateve

) . provide necessary provide -

Within currentWithin budget ecologicallycritical are tore important this this , NGOs, and the

r the r the role in climate changerole in

investment in largeinvestment in enabling Further, interactions and their and complex complex clear: without reason a changinga

olved in state (s) (s) issue. - based based

public (e.g.,

cognize

ary -

This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. Accepted Article simple, private sectors require 2016 higher levels ;

Whitneyet al.2016 s 2) 1) but we offer following recommendations the

institutional capacityinstitutional

species management areas, particularly collaboration necessary is valuable, for butaspiritofinnovation research Empower sustainability wider range ofsocial these partnershipswould programs fullyencompass freshwaterecosystemsandfisheries to populations andhabitats would allow state agenci localgroups, watershed thegeneral and public Cooperative Extension federal Cooperativeagencies, Research fisheriesWildlife Fish and Units, concerns. term thatcan issues be andnon federal, tribal, Expand among partnerships needs

(Carlson et al.2016; (Carlson et prevention andprevention

to be modified. Afterto be all,

and management Fore state agenciesandAESs s

(e.g.,use, food production, land tourism)

and ) xample , building in staff in staff meaningful progress - ecological productivity thataffectand fisheries issues , stateagencies AESscould fisheries partnerand overlooked - control programs governmental , while es

Paukert2016 et al. broadenfisherie thescopeof and maintain

and funding asand well as

approaches to advance focus beyond their fish onselect state fisheries agencies, AESs, .

empowering climate change adaptation/mitigation and invasive , NGOs, tribal resource natural organizations, as freshwateras stresso

in to learn andimplement novel the partners . ing

Historic in many fisheries face of more immediate andface quantifiable of based oursurveys oninsights from

socio ) . AESs to expand their toexpand agriculturalAESs Achieving these outcomes

. Partnerships these with entities

to better address largeto - al ecologically partners inboththe public and

methodologies are certainly productive s managementtoinclude rs intensify( .

research and and otherstate,

resilient fisheries resilient

state fisheries . Ult

Hunt et al. agency - imately, scale, long scale,

with

is not is not - AES

:

a - This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. Accepted Article 5) 4) 3)

freshwater tribal interests and s effective Fisheries Service fisheries administrator directors Survey otherfis sh often agencies long toprioritize donotappear term andlong interacting datafor short stressors.are testingefficacy Such also important the of understanding theeffects ofclimatespecies, change, invasive and multiple consistently over time long scales Preserve agencies ofstate ability the degradation. current of future)climatic warming inanticipation (and and habitat thermal corridors to fisheries professionals build tribal, and non sufficient cases, offuture climatic and projections invasivespecies conditions are Implement fisheriesmanagement anticipatory predictive, programs. tate ould beencouragedcontinue their monitoring to agencies and AESs have social

indicators of regional pressures and institutional leadershipregionalindicatorsand institutional of priorities, pressures but (e.g., lyaccurate

. valuable long valuable

- Understanding protect ecological (Carlson and resilience Forexample, Vondracek 2014). -

- term management actions.term management researchers instate/federal/tribal agencies governm heries stakeholders ).

national national

State agency AESdirectorsadministratorsState and are likely coldwater high habitats for

for

s in the s in and their partneand ental partnersental

state agencies state - are term fisherystudying datasetsfor how and that international transcendfish and policies

nested within a larger realm a within larger nested U.S.

America’s America’s .

Long

Fish Serviceand andWildlife beyond to m to implement rs and AESs - -

term data term can plant riparian rivercan plantalong vegetation term challenges they likeclimate change, Interestingly, wh onitor freshwater ecosystems freshwater onitor diverse diverse state agency state

- priority coldwater fishes during to collaboratefederal,to with state, sets are for invaluable fisheries professionals and analysis

ma nagement strategiesthat AES administrators and , AES of non ereas

these and challenges s, and universitie - efforts many sta many governmental and National MarineNational In many .

te te and and s; - This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. Acceptedfor conservation. American Sp ASA Mountains: potential impactchange ofclimate on E.DeSteiguer,Ahn, S.,J. R.B. Pal References (KJH). (MRW), DakotaSouth AgriculturalStation Experiment Forest Expe InstituteFood ofand Ag supporting thismanuscript: authors of thoughtful helped improve commentsthank We themanuscript. that design thankA. (University implementation. We Todgham California and of Article(Michigan State University for AgBioResearch)guidanceand helpful support volunteered energy survey theirand time tocomplete our Acknowledgments ( Americ thanktheWe state fisheries

governance. framework yieldcapitalfor and insights marine stakeholders fisheriesresearch perceive and management riment Station (MTK,GBZ),riment Station an

an Sportfishing Association application of a nested m —

could provide a muchdeepera understandingcould provide ofthe pr

to increase the

riculture (Project # MICL04161, all (Projectauthors),riculture #MICL04161, ortfishing Available Association. mquist, andT.P.Holmes. 2000. mquist, agency

socio recreational fishing trout inthe United States Department ofA ultinomial logit model.Climate ultinomial creating a Oklahom ). 2013. Sportfishing). 2013. inAmerica: aneconomic force - administrators ecological cohesive cohesive a Agricultural Station Experiment

resilience of

and t s

. We . We and AESdirectors human he acknowledge : McIntire –

fisheries management and fisheries management e Economic analysis ofthe — the n griculture National southern Appalachian Maine AgriculturalandMaine vironmental freshwaterand Change 45:493 following entities for – ofession’s human ofession’s human Stennis programStennis

who graciouslywho – D. Buhler in survey

Davis) for

( RTM – 509.

),

This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. and ecologicalFisheries threats. Sci Hughes, M.2015 R. edition. AmericanFisheries Society,Bethesda, Maryland. Hubert, A.,and W. One 9 U.S.A. PloS range contra Eby,L. M.Holsinger,O. Helmy, A., 1:70Dimensions ofWildlife clients stakeholders: forphilosophical to shift fish aHum andwildlife management. Krueger,Decker, C. Knuth, and D.2008.From M.E.Richmond. R.A.BaerB. J., A. Jr., and Gulf States. oftheMarine Coasts United Policy 74:323 climate changeand vulnerability social dependent infishing communities L. A.Hare. Colburn, L., and Weng, C. Weiss, J. 2016 T.Seara, M.Jepson, J. management impacts ofclimate change onstream wi salmonids TaylorCarlson, W. A.K., W. Science 22:284 Aquaculture and predictive Carlson,B. A.K., ofecology and Synthesis Vondracek. fordimensions and 2014. human ofFisheriesJournal Management 36:1437 artificial fishhabitat American turbidreservoirs sonar designsin using imagery. North Baumann, Oakley, R.,N.C. and Evaluating J. McRae. B. 2016. J. the f https://asafishing.org/uploads/2011_ASASportfishing_in_America_Report_January_2013.pd

Accepted Article (September 2018). management of bigheadin the UnitedStates. Reviews inFisheriesmanagementcarp of and silver ctions in Bull Trout Bull ctions in . Ecology of FreshwaterFish. Ecology 26:190 of :e98812.

M. C. Quist. 2010. Inland 2010. Quist. M. C. fisheries managementNorth in America, third

. Recreational fisheries in the USA: economics,. Recreational management strategies, inthe fisheries

– , K. M. Schlee, T. G. Zorn,andK. M.Schlee,G. D. T. , 82. – Salvelinus confluentus

300. ence 81:1

and M. K. Young.and M.K. 2014.Evidence – 1444. – 9.

– th implications forth implications resilience 204.

in aRocky Moun

– 333.

M. InfanteM.

effectiveness of tain watershed,tain along theEastern . 2016. of climate . Indicators. of - based based Projected an - induced induced This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. Acceptedinland fishandEnvironmental24:115 fisheries. Reviews Youn,and T.D. Beard.2016 J. Nohner,Nguyen, Rogers, Taylor, K. W. Woelmer,S. J. W. Phouthavong,B. W. W. M. Riley, Cooke, S. Lynch,J. A. J., A.M.Deines, V.M. I. D.Bower,Bunnell, S. B. Cowx, D. G. interactions? change: 2015.Climate Lõhmus,Björklund. fish doto M.,and what it M. will WileyInc.,& NewHoboken, Jersey. Sons, Lobón Management.FisheriesBethesda, American Society, Maryland. management. Pages 77 Lamb, Coughlan.considerationsL.,LegalB.B.K. 1993.inland fisheries in and A. States. Mitigation Martinich. 2013. J. Article C.Travers, R, Jones, C.Rodgers,Lazar,B. E Advances in climate changeand eutrophication Zandlo, C.,T.K.Cross, P. Jacobson, J. B.and D.P.Pereira. N.Carlson, (September 2018). change. Available: IPCC ( change toimpact recreationalFisheries inland 41:362 fishers. E. Lynch, J. and Paukert, P. C. L.Hunt, Fenichel, M.,E.P. ‐ Intergovernment Cerviá,

Limnology BiologicalLinnean Journal ofthe

J., and N J., and StrategiesGlobal Adaptation forCh

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/r Climate change impacts – al Panel Change) onClimate al . Sanz. 2017.Brown. Sanz. T 104 104 63:417 D. C.Fulton, R. in C. C.KohlerC. and Hubert,Inland W. editors. Fisheries a Whitney – . The social, economic, and. The e social, 427.

on Cisco on Cisco

.

2016.

on freshwater recreational i fishing Coregonus artedi

Mendelsohn . English, J. Lipton, Vogel, J. J. . English, rout: biology,ecologyrout: and management. John

Identifyingfor alternate climate pathways Society 116:397 . 2018. The regional. 2018.The imp egional/index.php?idp=237 –

, J. Smith, T.D.Tunney,, J. W. A.J. 121. ange 18:731 – nvironmental importancenvironmental of

abundance 372. –

411.

– 758.

2012. The effects2012. of in Minnesota lakes. in K. Strzepek, and

acts ofclimate — n theUnited parasite

This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. Accepted496. change onthe L.Pendleton, and Mendelsohn. R. H.,19 being. & Ecology in Trends Evolution Pejchar,L., H.A. and changingFisheries 41:374 climate. E.Whitney, Lynch.Shuter, J. A.J. and 2016.Adapting inlan L.Irwin, A.Hansen,Paukert, B. G. C.P., J. A.Glazer, J. B. C.Jacobson, B. P. J. Kershner, J. States. Biological 224:199 Conservation non Davis, S. Mangiante, A.Darling.Panlasigui, A.J. J. J. S., M. and freshwater FreshwaterBiology ecosystems. 55:1 Ormerod, S. marineground andwaters. Science 540:43 Environment ofthe Total ArticleSaguis, Birk. and S. 2016.Quantifiedbiotic abiotic responses stress freshwater, tomultiple in Nõges, C.Ar P., impacts. EcologyFish Freshwater 22 of and growth inArctic Murdoch, 2013. A.,and Th M.Power. perspectives and acrossregions disciplines. Taylor.Lynch,L. W. andK. D., W. M. Jones, Americanfish populati inland Kwak J. Lynch,A. J., -

native speciestonative freshwater , J. LyonsJ. , M. Dobson, A.Hildrew, and, M.Dobson, 2010 Townsend. C. B. J. Myers,B. C.Chu J.

freshwater sportsfisheries of gillier, Á. Borja, J. M. Garmendia, J. Hanganu,gillier, Borja, M.Garmendia, Á. J. J. Pletterbauer, F. V.Kodeš, A. , C. P. P. C. Charr populations: implications implications populations: Charr Mooney Paukert, and ons and assemblages. Fisheries 41: . 2009. Invasive and humanwell ecosystems species, services . 2009. ,

L. A.Eby – 384. J. E.Whitney.J. 2016b

e effecte morphometry oflake on 24:497 biodiversity: conservationbiodiversity: :453 –

98. Estimating theeconomic 208. American Fisheries Society, B American Fisheries Society, the northe – , 466. J. A.FalkeJ. –

2002. 2002. 504. –

4.

Sustaining North America salmon: for understanding astern U.S. Landastern 74 Economics U.S. ,

R. P. Kovach P. R. . Climate . Climate d fisheriestoa management . Multiple stressors. Multiple in 346

2018 priorities for theUnitedpriorities – change effectsNorth on – 52. impact ofclimate 361. . Assessing threatsof , thermal habitat use thermal climate T. J. KrabbenhoftJ. T.

ethesda, Maryland.

- change :483 , – T. -

This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. Acceptedew95.pdf https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/nahms/aquaculture/downloads/AquacultureOvervi United States. CentersEpidemiology& for Health. Animal USDA (United State Department ofAgricultur https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/gtc/gtc_census_divreg.html census regions.U.S. Department ofCommerce. United States multidisciplinary for conservation.Bethesda, American Fisheries science Maryland. Society, M.Long,Tringali, Allen.2015.Black D.,J. M. M. S. bassand Birdsong,diversity: T.W. Netherlands. edition) Elosegi, stressorsMultiple inNorth S Sullivan, Articlenonindigenous GreatLakes diminish species ecosystem 15:1 services. Ecosystems Rothlisberger, D.,D. C.Finn J. nutrients, and structure of Robillard, M.M.,andG.2006. Fox. invasive sp Rahel, F. 52:273 costs associated with D.,R.Zuniga,Pimentel, D. Morrison. 2005 – : status,impacts, a 288. S. Sabater,S.

J., and J. J., (September 2018). (September . ecies. Biology Conservation 22: warmwater piscivore communities communities warmwater piscivore M

Census Bureau. terms 2015.Geographic andconcepts temperature. Canadiantemperature. of Journal . P . ,

D. W. Manning, M.St. P. Jacques, J. and R. D. Olden.effec 2008.Assessing the and R. Ludwig, R. and editors. alien nd prospects the future. for - invasive speciesUnited States. EcologicalEconomics inthe America: pers

off, R. M. Cooke, and D. M. Lodge. D.M. off, R. M.Cooke, and 2012.Ship Historical changes inabundance pectives forpectives World. theNew 521 . Update onthe. Update environmental economic and Multiple stressorsecosystemsMultiple inriver e). 1995. Overviewe). aquaculture inthe of – associated with changes i

Fisheries and Sciences Aquatic 63 533. Available:

Academic Press ( Academic Press t s ofclimate onaquatic change

Available: Moncayo

(September 2018). –

census divisions and divisions census Pages Pages ?? Elsevier n water clarity, - and communityand Estrada. - – ) borne , Amsterdam, ??

:798 – 201 (1

In 15. st

A.

9

– . 809.

This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. Accepted Article AmericanFisheries Society 133:399 enhancement inMichigan speciesand structuresacross habitats Transactions rivers. ofthe T. M.T.Bremigan,Wills, C., B.and D.Hayes. 2 impactsNorth on American41:332 inland fishes. Fisheries Lynch,M. Rogers, Paukert.and P. C. 2016.Physiological A. J. change basisofclimate Whitney, E.,R.Al J. - Chokhachy, D

. B. Bunnell, C. A. Caldwell, S. J. B. J. Cooke, C.A.Caldwell, Bunnell, S. Eliason, . E.J. – 411.

004. Variableeffects004. ofhabitat

– 345.

This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. alphabetically below. Acceptedvarious employees management numbers listed of whoaddress responsibilities fisheries Table 5 groupstaxonomic (e.g., ecologically most organisms asonefive ofthe threatening directorsAES, (% Table water unimportant.somewhat important,or threats aquaticecosystems to Table Article designated five directors ( Table 2. (FA) Table 1. Types and measures the usedfor ofquestions C Table most most and Agricultural Experiment Station (AES)and director AgriculturalStation Experiment surveys. shed and shed 4 3. P . Percentage of . aptions aptions Percent Percent important % ercentage of

where appropriate.

AES, in age of age of -

stream stream N N in

= 11) whodesignated=invasive aquatic groups 11) orspeciesof particular whodesignated=fish as groups 11) one orspeciesof particular ofthe

their respective states. fisheries administratorsfisheries ( state state state plants spatial fisheries fisheries fisheries in their respective states

)

are designated scales agency agency agency Land .

- use change/habitat

administrators ( administrators administrators (%administrators Admin, administrators Similar taxonomic groups taxonomic Similar

where appropriate. where N

= 27)from

as veryimportant, important, state agency

in their respective in their respective

( % N state

impairment = 27) Admin,

agencies thatemployagencies fisheries administrator fisheries

who ratedvarious

N N (e.g., black b black (e.g.,

= 27)and= AES = 27)and= AES

includes both states.

Similar Similar ass) are

This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. AcceptedMann important management iss y Note the rankings fisheries managementissues of Figure 2. VirginiaTexas, West DakotaSouth from the n issues intheirrespectivebarsstates. Differentrepresent colored and (B) climateare important,orvery unimportant, somewhat change important Figure 1.Percentageof Figure C Article Table Table S2 (Supplementary 2). director ofthe Copy AES survey. Table Table S1 (Supplementary 1). ofthe Copy below. various Table 6 – Whitney

. Percentage of budget percentages tow aptions aptions Box - orth axis scale, where lower numbers correspond withhigher scale, (i.e.,correspond rankings moreaxis where numbers lower ) and thes - ern USA ern and U

- Test whiskers plot whiskers ).

) in median rankings) in between fisheries

(white bars;(white state state outh ues). A ern USA fisheries

ard fisheries listed management responsibilities alphabetically administrators displaying s terisk Indiana,Kansas, Michigan, Nebraska,North Dakota,

(gray bars; agency s (dark bands) bands) (dark denote

state administrators whobelieveadministrators invasivespecies (A) ( N state agencystate

statisti Arkansas, Delaware,Tennessee, Oklahoma, fisheries fisheries

= 27)from state agency currently decade.and overnext the cally significant differences

agency

fisheries administratorfisheries survey. state stat

administrators in the administrators administrators median agencies thatinvest agencies e agencye

administrators ( P

< 0.05,

This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. production disease/ (land VirginiaTexas, West Dakota n Accepted Article orth - ern USA use change anduse change ) ands the hea ), CLC ( l th), FRS (fisheriesth), research), (wild WFP

(white boxes; outh climate change ). Abbreviations are as follows: ). Abbreviations areas follows: aquatic ern USA ern Indiana,Dakota, Michigan, Kansas, NorthSouth Nebraska, habitat

(gray boxes; adaptation/mitigation impairment), AISimpairment), FDH (aquatic(fish invasivespecies), Arkansas, Tennessee, Delaware,Oklahoma, - fish production), (hatchery HFP WQQ ( WQQ ).

water quality/quantity ), LUH ), - fish This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. AcceptedComments Aquatic species University Tenure Recreational fishing Fisheries involvement Fisheries funding Fish consumption External funding Expertise AES budgetallocation ArticleWater quality Agency location Fisheries importance Aquatic threats Agencyallocation budget Topics Table 1.

affiliation

FA Survey AES AES AES AES AES AES AES FA FA FA FA Both Both AES AES

Current andprojected future budget allocation responsibilities Description ofagency water qualitymanagement employed Option recreational, scientific, cultural, nutritional) Relative importance ecological, (economic, species)fish production, invasive climate quality/quantity, land Relative importanceaquatic threats of (water for fisheries management Current andprojected future budget allocation Measures Optional comments aboutsurvey (economic, food web) humanhealth, Five posegreatest invasive that species threats Optional questionabout university affiliation Yearsas AESdirector served Frequencyyear fishingrecreational inthe last of none)minor, infisheriesissues Strength(strong, ofinvolvement moderate, fisheries Annualcontracts grants received that and are yearand thelast in weekFrequency fish consumption of Annualcontracts grants received and Description expertise ofareas of for agricultureresource and natural issues al about state question U.S. where change, research, inadequate inadequate -

related

- use change,use disease,

This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. Accepted Article University interactions Staffing Fish species Ecosystemevaluation

Both Both Both Both

universities Description interactions ofagency/AES with employeesjob duties fisheries with Number andof percentage subsistence, cultural) (commercial, recreational, ecological, Five important most fishspecies and why assessment improving ecosystem freshwater health Optional description of waysdescription of agency/AES is

agency/AES

AcceptedThis article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. Tilapia Sturgeon Delta Smelt Cyprinids Sucker Bluehead Paddlefish Alligator Gar Yellow Perch Temperate Bass Salmon Pike ArticleWalleye Sunfish Crappie Catfish Trout BlackBass Taxa Table 2.

NA NA NA NA NA 1 1 2 4 4 5 7 8 11 14 20 23 %

Admin

2 2 2 17 2 2 NA 4 4 4 2 8 6 2 8 18 17 %

AES

Largemouth Bass groupSpecies included in Tilapia Acipenser Hypomesus transpacificus macrolepidotus Chub Roundtail Hornyhead discobolus Catostomus Polyodon spathula Atractosteus spatula Perca flavescens Striped Bass Chinook E. lucius Chain Pickerel Sander vitreus Lepomis Black Crappie Channel Catfish henshawi Trout Brook Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss

spp.

spp. Oncorhynchus tshawytsch , Redband Trout spp.

Chub Chub

Salvelinus fontinalis Salvelinus Morone saxatili

Pomoxis nigromaculatus Pomoxis

Esox niger, Esox niger, , Suckermouth Minnow Minnow , Suckermouth Gila robusta Ictalurus punctatus,

Nocomis biguttatus Nocomis Micropterus salmoides Micropterus

O. mykiss gairdnerii Muskellunge , Lahontan, Cutthroat Trout , White Bass , Sacramento Splittail , Brown Trout , Coho , Coho , Humpback Chub Flathead Catfish Phenacobius mirabilis , White Crappie, White

E. masquinongy, E. masquinongy, , Smallmouth Bass M. chrysops O. kisutch, , Steelhead Salmo trutta Salmo Pogonichthys Kokanee Pylodictis olivaris

O. clarkii Gila cypha P. annularis Northern Pike O. mykiss M. dolomieu , Rainbow

O. nerka ,

AcceptedThis article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. Inadequate hatchery Inadequate wild Inadequate fisheriesresearch Article changeClimate Disease/fish health Invasive species Water quality/quantity Lan Threat Table d - use change/habitat impairmentuse change/habitat 3.

-

fish production

- fish production

7 15 4 19 26 74 85 93 % Very important

7 Important% 22 26 41 41 37 19 11

0 % Somewhat important 52 37 52 33 33 7 4

19 22 3 7 4 0 0 0 % Unimportant

AcceptedThis article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. hogsWild Spiny fleawater Diseases/viruses Other invasive invertebrates Nuisance algae Bigheadand Carp Silver Mussels andsnails ArticleFishes Carp) (notSilver Bighead and Plants Taxa Table

4 .

1 1 4 5 5 15 19 23 27 % Admin

34 % AES NA 2 2 10 NA 14 22 16

Brazilian waterweed groupSpecies included in Sus scrofa Bythotrephes longimanus whirling disease Infectious pancreaticranavirus, necrosis, hemorrhagic septicemia, viral virile crayfish Potamopyrgus antipodarum Islandapple snail Cyanobacteria, Hypophthalmichthys nobilis Quagga mussel GobyRound Petromyzon marinus Micropterus salmoides Lepomis cyanellus cepedianum Catfish Brown Trout Blue Tilapia Black Carp AlabamaBass hyacinth starry stonewart verticillata Arundo spp Myriophyllum spicatum curlyleaf pondweed cordgrass Pylodictis olivaris Eichhornia crassipes Spartina spp Spartina

, purple loosestrife ., giant salvinia Mylopharyngodon piceus , GrassCarp Oreochromis aureus Oreochromis Neogobius melanostomus Neogobius Salmo trutta Orconectes virilis Orconectes Micropterus henshalli Micropterus Didymosphenia geminata Dreissena bugensisDreissena

Nitellopsis obtu Nitellopsis Pomacea insularum Pomacea , Lake, Trout Potamogeton crispus Potamogeton , Red Shiner , Red Egeria densa Egeria ., creeping., water primrose , Northern Snakehead , flowering, rush Ctenopharyngodon idella

, Common Carp , Common , gar

Salvinia molesta , redcrayfish swamp , H. molitrix Lythrum salicaria

Lepisosteus Lepisosteus Salvelinus namaycush

sa , Brook Trout Cyprinella lutrensis , common reed , water chestnut , zebra mussel , Alewife , Blue Catfish , New Zealand, New mudsnail , Butomus umbellatus Butomus White PerchWhite

, golden , Eurasian Cyprinus carpio spp., Gizzard Shad spp., Gizzard , hydrilla Channa argus Channa Alosa pseudoharengus Alosa Salvelinus fontinalis , saltcedar Procambarus clarkii, Ludwigia peploides Ludwigia algae (Chrysophyceae) Phragmites australis D. polymorpha , G Trapa natans Trapa

Ictalurus furcatus watermilfoil Morone americana , Largemouth, Bass Hydrilla , released baitfish, reen Sunfish , Flathead , Sea Lamprey, Sea Tamarix spp Tamarix , giant cane Dorosoma , water

, , , , , .,

This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. Water quality/quantity Invasive species Habitat Fisheries research Fish production Disease/fish health changeClimate mitigation/adaptation Responsibility Table 5. Accepted Article

44 65 24 27 11 73 38 1

- 5

12 15 4 31 8 8 8 6 Employees - 10

12 12 40 23 31 4 4 11

- 20

32 8 32 19 50 15 50 21 or more

This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. Water Invasive species Habitat Fisheries research Fish production Disease/fish health changeClimate mitigation/adaptation Responsibility Table 6 Accepted Article quality/quantity

.

52 16 4 8 0 40 76 <1%

28 36 8 12 4 40 4 1 Budget - 3%

8 24 32 24 4 16 0 3

- 5%

12 24 56 56 92 4 20 > 5%

This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. Accepted Article

This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. Accepted Article