VOL 36 NO 10 OCTOBER 2011 FisheriesAmerican Fisheries Society • www.fisheries.org

NSERC’s HydroNet: A national research network to promote sustainable hydropower and healthy aquatic ecosystems

Conservation and Management of : Lessons from

03632415(2011)36(10)

VOL 36 NO 10 Fisheries OCTOBER 2011 Contents

COLUMNS 477 PRESIDENT’S HOOK Collaborative Networks and AFS: How Strong Are Our Connections? Bill Fisher—AFS President 496 515 GUEST DIRECTOR’S LINE Observations From Recreational Fishing in the Northern Gulf of Densities of rusticus are often extremely high in invaded Mexico One Year After the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill systems such as the Susquehanna River in Pennsylvania. A report from a fishing trip to the Gulf. Don Jackson—AFS Past President STUDENT ANGLE 508 Live to Spawn Another Day: Understanding The Fuel UPDATE Efficiency Of Snake River Steelhead 478 LEGISLATION AND POLICY Determining the fuel efficiency of a steelhead is no easy Elden W. Hawkes, Jr. task, especially for the steelhead. Zachary L. Penney FEATURE: RESEARCH 480 NSERC’s HydroNet: A National Research Network 509 SECOND CALL FOR PAPERS to Promote Sustainable Hydropower and Healthy Aquatic Ecosystems AWARDS Objectives of HydroNet, and an overview of the ongoing and future research activities that will be conducted by the 511 The Steven Berkeley Marine Conservation network. Fellowship Winners Karen E. Smokorowski, Normand Bergeron, Daniel Boisclair, Keith Clarke, Steven Cooke, Rick Cunjak, Jeff Dawson, Brett OBITUARY Eaton, Faye Hicks, Paul Higgins, Chris Katopodis, Michel 513 In Memoriam: Joseph Nelson Lapointe, Pierre Legendre, Michael Power, Robert Randall, Joseph Rasmussen, George Rose, Andre Saint-Hilaire, Brent Sellars, Gary Swanson, Nicholas Winfield, Roger Wysocki, JOURNAL HIGHLIGHTS David Zhu 518 North American Journal of Aquaculture, Volume 73, FEATURE: CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT Number 3 489 Conservation and Management of Crayfishes: Lessons CALENDAR from Pennsylvania Conservation and management initiatives that consider 519 Fisheries Events the role of barriers (e.g., dams), environmental protection, educational programs, and regulations in preventing invasions and conserving native crayfishes are discussed, ANNOUNCEMENTS and the need for methods to eliminate exotics and monitor 521 October 2011 Jobs natives is highlighted David A. Lieb, Raymond W. Bouchard, Robert F. Carline, Ted R. Nuttall, John R. Wallace, Carrie L. Burkholder ERRATA • In the article Crossroad Blues: An Intersection of Rivers, Wetlands, and Public Policy of the July edition (Volume 36, Issue 7), Yuri Slynko’s first name under “authors” was mis- spelled. COVER: ”The red drum on the cover photo for the October issue of Fisheries was my largest of the trip at 32 pounds (as well as my largest red drum ever). • In the list of Contributing Members on page 406 of the I considered having it mounted but upon reflection following the photo session August edition (Volume 36, Issue 8), the Hatfield Marine Sci- released it unharmed back into the Gulf of Mexico. Doing so warmed my heart ence Center is erroneously attributed to State University (the rest of me was already drenched in sweat).” rather than the correct Oregon State University. Don Jackson, AFS Past President. CREDIT: Don Flynn EDITORIAL / SUBSCRIPTION / CIRCULATION OFFICES 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110•Bethesda, MD 20814-2199 (301) 897-8616 • fax (301 )897-8096 • [email protected] The American Fisheries Society (AFS), founded in 1870, is the oldest and largest professional society representing fisheries scientists. The AFS promotes scientific research and enlightened Fisheries management of aquatic resources for optimum use and enjoyment by the public. It also American Fisheries Society • www.fisheries.org encourages comprehensive education of fisheries scientists and continuing on-the-job training.

AFS OFFICERS FISHERIES STAFF EDITORS PRESIDENT SENIOR EDITOR SCIENCE EDITORS BOOK REVIEW EDITOR DUES AND FEES FOR 2011 ARE: $80 in ($95 elsewhere) for William L. Fisher Ghassan “Gus” N. Rassam Madeleine Hall-Arber Francis Juanes regular members, $20 in North America ($30 Ken Ashley elsewhere) for student members, and $40 PRESIDENT ELECT DIRECTOR OF PUBLICATIONS Howard I. Browman ($50 elsewhere) for retired members. John Boreman Aaron Lerner Steven Cooke ABSTRACT TRANSLATION Ken Currens Pablo del Monte Luna Fees include $19 for Fisheries subscription. FIRST VICE PRESIDENT MANAGING EDITOR Andy Danylchuk Robert Hughes Sarah Fox Deirdre M. Kimball Nonmember and library subscription rates are Dennis Lassuy $157 in North America ($199 elsewhere). SECOND VICE PRESIDENT Daniel McGarvey Price per copy: $3.50 member; $6 nonmem- Donna Parrish Allen Rutherford ber. Roar Sandodden PAST PRESIDENT Jeff Schaeffer Wayne A. Hubert Jack E. Williams Jeffrey Williams EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Ghassan “Gus” N. Rassam

Fisheries (ISSN 0363-2415) is published monthly by the American Fisheries Society; 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110; Bethesda, MD 20814-2199 © copyright 2011. Periodicals postage paid at Bethesda, , and at an additional mailing office. A copy of Fisheries Guide for Authors is available from the editor or the AFS website, www.fisheries.org. If requesting from the managing editor, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed envelope with your request. Republication or systematic or multiple reproduction of material in this publication is permitted only under consent or license from the American Fisheries Society. Postmaster: Send address changes to Fisheries, American Fisheries Society; 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110; Bethesda, MD 20814-2199.

Fisheries is printed on 10% post-consumer recycled paper with soy-based printing inks.

2012 AFS MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION PAID: AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY • 5410 GROSVENOR LANE • SUITE 110 • BETHESDA, MD 20814-2199 (301) 897-8616 x203 OR x224 • FAX (301) 897-8096 • WWW.FISHERIES .ORG NAME Recruited by an AFS member? yes no Name Address EMPLOYER Industry Academia City Federal gov’t State/Province ZIP/Postal Code State/provincial gov’t Country Other Please provide (for AFS use only) All memberships are for a calendar year. PAYMENT Phone New member applications received Janu- Please make checks payable to American Fisheries ary 1 through August 31 are processed Society in U.S. currency drawn on a U.S. bank, or pay by Fax for full membership that calendar year VISA, MasterCard, or American Express. (back issues are sent). Applications E-mail received September 1 or later are _____Check _____VISA processed for full membership beginning _____MasterCard January 1 of the following year. _____American Express Account #______MEMBERSHIP TYPE/DUES (Includes print Fisheries and online Membership Directory) Developing countries I (Includes online Fisheries only): N/A NORTH AMERICA; _____$10 OTHER Exp. Date ______Developing countries II: N/A NORTH AMERICA; _____$35 OTHER Regular: _____$80 NORTH AMERICA; _____$95 OTHER Signature ______Student (includes online journals): _____$20 NORTH AMERICA; _____$30 OTHER Young professional (year graduated): _____$40 NORTH AMERICA; _____$50 OTHER Retired (regular members upon retirement at age 65 or older): _____$40 NORTH AMERICA; _____$50 OTHER Life (Fisheries and 1 journal): _____$1, 737 NORTH AMERICA; _____$1737 OTHER Life (Fisheries only, 2 installments, payable over 2 years): _____$1,200 NORTH AMERICA; _____$1,200 OTHER: $1,200 Life (Fisheries only, 2 installments, payable over 1 year): _____ $1,000 NORTH AMERICA; _____$1,000 OTHER

JOURNAL SUBSCRIPTIONS (Optional) Transactions of the American Fisheries Society: _____$25 ONLINE ONLY; _____$55 NORTH AMERICA PRINT; _____$65 OTHER PRINT North American Journal of Fisheries Management: _____$25 ONLINE ONLY; _____$55 NORTH AMERICA PRINT; _____$65 OTHER PRINT North American Journal of Aquaculture: _____$25 ONLINE ONLY; _____$45 NORTH AMERICA PRINT; _____$54 OTHER PRINT Journal of Aquatic Health: _____$25 ONLINE ONLY; _____$45 NORTH AMERICA PRINT; _____$54 OTHER PRINT Fisheries InfoBase: ____$25 ONLINE ONLY Column: PRESIDENT’S HOOK Collaborative Networks and AFS: How Strong Are Our Connections?

Bill Fisher, President

The American Fisheries Society is a large collaborative Because the AFS net- network of people tied together by a shared mission—to ad- work is large, diverse and AFS President Fisher may be contacted at: vance sound science, promote professional development, and dynamic, we are challenged [email protected] disseminate science-based fisheries information for the global to know what our units are protection, conservation, and sustainability of fishery resources doing and how they are con- and aquatic ecosystems. This network is composed of interna- tributing to our mission and strategic plan. To some extent this tional, national, regional, and local groups, which we refer to is a reporting and accounting problem; but, it is more than that. as units and committees. One branch of the network includes Our divisions and chapters are geographically distributed across the four geographic divisions that are linked to 45 state, na- the continent and our sections and committees have members tional (Canadian, Mexican), and university chapters, and also from around the world. Having our members so broadly dis- over 58 student subunits. Another branch consists of 22 sec- tributed means we need a strong and reliable communication tions that represent professional interests, including fisheries system to stay connected. This system consists of our electron- management, fish culture, fisheries information and technol- ic communications such as our website and email, traditional ogy, and some of these sections have subsections (e.g., student phone and mail correspondence, and–perhaps most important- subsection of the education section). A third branch of this ly–face-to-face meetings. Ideally, through our shared mission network contains the more than 30 standing and special com- and means of communication, all of our members should feel mittees that perform the work of the Society under the guid- connected to our society. However, this is not always the case, ance of the president. Finally, there is the branch of AFS staff and one issue AFS has struggled with for many years, which that is managed by the executive director. In all, the AFS net- was the topic of the Governing Board retreat in Seattle, is the work consists of over 160 units and many more links that con- issue of “affiliate” members. Affiliates are those members who nect them. This network is both remarkable and unique among belong to a state chapter, student subunit and in some cases a professional societies. However, the sheer size of this network section, but are not members of the parent society. In a recent presents challenges in terms of communication and collabora- survey, we found that nearly a third of the chapter members tion among units and members. were affiliates and in some units, affiliate members comprise up to three-quarters of the chapter membership. Ultimately, this A collaborative network is defined as a variety of con- type of affiliation is not good for the Society and it represents a nected entities (e.g., units) that are geographically distributed, weak tie in our network because affiliate members are not pay- heterogeneous in terms of their attributes such as culture, en- ing the same dues or receiving the same services that regular vironment, and can be autonomous. Through collaboration, members receive. As a result, they are not well connected to these entities are better able to achieve common goals that the society. Maintaining strong ties with our units and mem- would not be possible if they attempted them individually. The bers is a key to maintaining a strong organizational network. collaborative network concept grew out of the computer, com- munication, social, and organizational management sciences So what can we do to strengthen our collaborative net- and it has implications for the AFS network. Well-functioning work? First, we need to use our collaborative network of mem- collaborative networks are highly integrated; have clear com- bers to develop creative solutions, such as a new approach for munication and information exchange; complimentary, com- dealing with our affiliate members to better integrate them into patible and joint goals; aligned activities; and units that work the society. I have charged our Membership Concerns Com- (and create) together. The AFS mission and strategic plan pro- mittee the task of studying the extent of the affiliate member- vide the common goal for AFS units and serve to guide us and ship in chapters and sections and developing ways to better align our activities. For example, an objective in our strategic integrate this group into the society. This also should improve plan, AFS 2020 Vision, under the global fisheries leadership our accounting of all AFS members. It also supports the mem- goal, is to promote fisheries conservation throughout North bership objective to enhance participation of students and America and the world, at all levels of government and society, professionals at all levels of the society to assure recruitment, and among all levels of AFS by supporting sound science and retention, and leadership development into the future. One networking opportunities.To effectively achieve this objective, way to improve the connections among units and members is AFS units need to align their activities, which we currently do through enhanced web services. Our Electronic Services Ad- but could do better. Continued on page 520

Fisheries • vol 36 no 10 • october 2011 • www.fisheries.org 477 Update: LEGISLATION & POLICY

The National Fish Habitat Conser- in requested funding. vation Act Referred to the Senate This new authoriza- Committee on Environment and Public tion request includes the following: Works On June 15, 2011, Senator Joe Lieberman (ID-CT) pre- • $7.2 million to sented to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public the USFWS for Works the reintroduction of the National Fish Habitat Con- Elden W. Hawkes, Jr. Fish Habitat servation Act (S.1201) to significantly advance ongoing efforts Policy Coordinator Hawkes can be Conservation to restore and protect fish habitats by establishing the most contacted at [email protected] Projects comprehensive efforts ever attempted to address the causes of fish habitat decline. The Act would improve the health of • $0.5 million each for the USFWS, NOAA, and USGS America’s waterways and ensure that the United States has fu- for technical and scientific assistance ture robust fish populations.

The National Fish Habitat Conservation Act authorizes NOAA Approves New Management assistance grants for fish habitat projects that are supported by Measures That Provide Greater preexisting regional fish habitat partnerships. The bill estab- lishes a multi-stakeholder national fish habitat board to recom- Flexibility to Sustainable Atlantic mend science-based conservation projects to the secretary of Sea Scallop Fisheries interior for assistance. Subsequently, regional partners would NOAA has approved a host of new management measures then work to implement those conservation projects to pro- for the Atlantic sea scallop fishery, developed by the New Eng- tect, restore, and enhance fish habitats and fish populations. land Fishery Management Council with input from the fish- ing industry. Included in these measures is an increase in catch The bill is cosponsored by the following senators: Crapo limits, due to effective science-based management for the re- (R-ID), Tester (D-MT), Bingaman (D-NM), Murkowski (R- mainder of this fishing year and in 2012. NOAA’s regional ad- AK), Whitehouse (D-RI), Begich (D-AK), Cardin (D-MD), ministrator stated that this was possible because the Atlantic Udall (D-CO), and Klobuchar (D-MN). sea scallop was healthy and the fishery is operating successfully. S.1201 contains minor changes in language and signifi- In addition to an increase in catch limits, other manage- cantly different funding levels from the version reported out ment measures include the following: of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in • Increasing the operating efficiency and flexibility for the 111th Congress in 2010. For example, the funding levels some scallop vessels with an individual fishing quota by requested for the proposed Act are significantly lower than the increasing trip limits funding requested for the original bill. • Improving the current quota transfer program • Providing the ability to carry over some unused quota The original bill contained a total authorization request into the next fishing year of about $127 million per year. The authorization request in- cluded the following: The new management measures also make changes to cur- • $75 million to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (US- rent area closures that protect fish habitat consistent between FWS) for Fish Habitat Conservation Projects groundfish and scallop regulations, by allowing an increase in fishing access for scallop vessels in two of the previously closed • $3 million to the USFWS for the National Fish Habitat areas while protecting vulnerable seabed habitats from the ad- Conservation Partnership Office verse effects of fishing.

• $10 million each for the USFWS, National Oceanic For instance, NOAA approved several measures whereby and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and U.S. a slightly larger portion of the annual scallop catch can be sold Geological Survey (USGS) for technical and scientific to cover the cost of collaborative research between scallop fish- assistance erman and scientists to gather more information on scallop bi- ology and habitat. Scallop vessels involved in research will also • $300,000 to the USFWS for planning and administra- be exempt from some fishing regulations. tive expenses Moreover, in addition to ensuring that scallop fisherman are able to harvest their entire allocation of scallops, this ac- In stark contrast, S.1201 contains a total authorization re- tion is designed to provide needed protection for rebuilding quest of only $9.3 million, which represents a 73% decrease yellowtail flounder, because they are often caught by fishermen

478 Fisheries • vol 36 no 10 • october 2011 • www.fisheries.org along with scallops in some areas. Because scallop vessels catch yellowtail flounder when fishing for scallops, they receive an From the Archives annual allocation of yellowtail flounder. If the yellowtail catch Tetrapturusamplus makes its appearance at the is exceeded, however, NOAA will close areas where high end of July, and is most abundant during August. catches of yellowtail have historically occurred for a portion of the next fishing year. Its ordinary weight is two hundred to three hundred pounds, but it reaches a much greater size, and is Canadian Government Pledges Funding often taken weighing four hundred to five hundred Support of British Columbia Aquaculture pounds, and even eight hundred. In early August 2011, the Canadian government an- The males are smaller. These two swim nounced significant funding to support innovation and sustain- at the depth of one hundred fathoms. They journey in ability in the aquaculture industry in British Columbia. The federal funding provided through the Aquaculture Innovation Pairs, shaping their course toward the Gulf of Mexi- and Market Access Program is supporting three finfish and five co, the females being full of eggs. shellfish aquaculture projects in British Columbia. The proj- Only adults are taken. It is not known whence ects are designed to help the industry expand its market poten- they come, where they breed, or how the young re- tial through new technologies for use in the British Columbian turn; it is not even known whether the adult fishes aquaculture industry. return by the same route. The companies receiving project funding include the fol- When the fish has swallowed the hook it rises to lowing: Target Marine Hatcheries (Sechelt), Sablefish Canada the surface, making prodigious leaps and plunges; ex- (Salt Spring Island), West Coast Fish Culture (Lois Lake), Is- land Sea Farms (Salt Spring Island), Little Wing Oysters (Pow- hausted at last, it is dragged to the boat, secured with ell River), Island Scallops (Qualicum Beach), as well as the a boat-hook, and beaten to death before it is hauled Coastal Shellfish Corporation, which is leading projects on on board. behalf of the Heiltsuk First Nation and the Metlakatla First Such fishing is not without danger, for the Tetrap- Nation. ture sometimes rushes upon the boat, drowning the Because Canadian aquaculture production has increased fisherman or wounding him with his terrible weapon. fourfold in the past 20 years, federal funding of this type is of considerable significance to the Canadian economy. Canada’s G. Brown Goode, Eleventh Annual Fish-Cultural Association aquaculture industry has become a key export, with about 70% of all Canadian aquaculture products sold to foreign markets.

Fisheries • vol 36 no 10 • october 2011 • www.fisheries.org 479 Feature: RESEARCH

NSERC’s HydroNet: A National Research Network to Promote Sustainable Hydropower and Healthy Aquatic Ecosystems

Karen E. Smokorowski Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), Science, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, NSERC’s HydroNet: Red Nacional de Canada (Corresponding author: [email protected]) Investigación para Promover el Uso Normand Bergeron Program in Hydrology, Institut National de Recherche Scientifique–Eau- Sustentable de Energía Hidroeléctrica y Terre-Environnement (INRS-ETE), , QC, Canada Ecosistemas Acuáticos Saludables Daniel Boisclair Department of Biological Sciences, University of Montreal, Montreal, RESUMEN: NSERC’s HydroNet es un programa nacional Quebec, Canada colaborativo de investigación a cinco años que inició en el año 2010 e involucra a los sectores académico, guber- Keith Clarke namental e industrial. El objetivo general de HydroNet Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), Science, Oceans and Environment Branch, St. John’s, NL, Canada es comprender los efectos que tienen las operaciones hi- droeléctricas en los ecosistemas acuáticos y ofrecer herra- Steven Cooke mientas científicas defendibles y transparentes tendientes Department of Biology, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada a mejorar los procesos en la toma de decisiones que están Rick Cunjak asociados al uso de la energía hidroeléctrica. Diversos Canadian Rivers Institute, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB, proyectos se encuentran insertos en tres grandes tópicos: Canada 1) análisis ecosistémico de la capacidad productiva de los Jeff Dawson hábitats para peces (CPHP) en ambientes fluviales, 2) Department of Biology, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada Modelación de meso-escala de la capacidad productiva de los hábitats para peces en lagos y embalses, y 3) predicción Brett Eaton del riesgo de arrastre de peces hacia los embalses hidro- Department of Geography, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada eléctricos, en función del poder generador de las opera- ciones, combinando la ecología conductual y la ingeniería Faye Hicks hidráulica. El conocimiento generado por HydroNet es Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada fundamental para evaluar el balance entre la demanda por recursos hídricos limitados, para asegurar que la energía Paul Higgins hidroeléctrica sea sustentable, que promueva la salud de BC Hydro, Burnaby, BC, Canada los ecosistemas acuáticos así como también a la pujante Chris Katopodis economía canadiense. Fisheries and Oceans Canada (retired); Katopodis Ecohydraulics Ltd., Winnipeg, MB, Canada Andre Saint-Hilaire Program in Hydrology, Institut National de Recherche Scientifique–Eau- Michel Lapointe Terre-Environnement (INRS-ETE), Quebec, QC, Canada Department of Geography, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada Brent Sellars Pierre Legendre Nalcor Energy, St. John’s, NL, Canada Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada Gary Swanson Michael Power Senior Environmental Specialist, Manitoba Hydro, Winnipeg, MB, Canada Department of Biology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada Nicholas Winfield Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), Habitat Management Policy Branch, Robert Randall Ottawa, ON, Canada Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), Science, Burlington, ON, Canada Roger Wysocki Joseph Rasmussen Environment and Biodiversity Science Branch, Ottawa, ON, Canada Department of Biological Sciences, University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, AB, Canada David Zhu Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Alberta, George Rose Edmonton, AB, Canada Centre for Fisheries Ecosystem Research, Fisheries and Marine Institute, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, NL, Canada All authors are also members of the NSERC HydroNet Network, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Montreal, QC, Canada.

480 Fisheries • vol 36 no 10 • october 2011 • www.fisheries.org ABSTRACT: NSERC’s HydroNet is a collaborative national five- Fisheries and Oceans [DFO] 1986), which has been adopted year research program initiated in 2010 involving academic, govern- by Fisheries and Oceans Canada and has as a first objective to ment, and industry partners. The overarching goal of HydroNet is protect the productive capacity of fish habitats (PCFH). In the to improve the understanding of the effects of hydropower operations policy, productive capacity is defined as “The maximum natu- on aquatic ecosystems, and to provide scientifically defensible and ral capability of habitats to produce healthy fish, safe for human transparent tools to improve the decision-making process associated consumption, or to support or produce aquatic organisms upon with hydropower operations. Multiple projects are imbedded under which fish depend” (DFO 1986). However, in application of three themes: 1) Ecosystemic analysis of productive capacity of fish the policy, numerous indices or surrogates have been used (e.g., habitats (PCFH) in rivers, 2) Mesoscale modelling of the productive habitat area with assumed suitability, biomass, or catch per unit capacity of fish habitats in lakes and reservoirs, and 3) Predicting the effort), with the frequency of use in direct relation to the com- entrainment risk of fish in hydropower reservoirs relative to power plexity of the measure (Quigley and Harper 2006). The result generation operations by combining behavioral ecology and hydrau- is that population or community production is rarely used as lic engineering. The knowledge generated by HydroNet is essential a measure of PCFH in application of the Fisheries Act (Smo- to balance the competing demands for limited water resources and korowski et al. 1998). In addition, the policy states that “no to ensure that hydropower is sustainable, maintains healthy aquatic net loss of the productive capacity of habitats” (DFO 1986) is ecosystems and a vibrant Canadian economy. fundamental to the habitat conservation goal. Under this prin- ciple, DFO will strive to mitigate habitat changes to the extent possible and balance unavoidable habitat losses with habitat Introduction replacement on a project-by-project basis so that further reduc- The 470-plus hydroelectric facilities distributed across tions to Canada’s fisheries resources due to habitat alteration, the country generate more than 60% of the electricity used destruction, or disruption may be prevented. by Canadians (Canadian Electricity Association 2009). The rising demand for energy and the interest in renewable energy Managers responsible for implementing this policy and will require additional facilities and increased production from proponents of projects (e.g., hydroelectric companies) must be the existing installations. Hydroelectric facilities have a direct able to estimate the productive capacity of an aquatic ecosys- influence on all physical, chemical, and biological processes tem before and to predict the productive capacity of this eco- that take place in aquatic ecosystems and, eventually, on their system after the realization of a project such that the principle capacity to produce biomass (Poff et al. 1997; Rosenberg et al. of no net loss can be respected. The estimation of PCFH is 1997). Although progress has been made on several mitigation complicated by the nature of this variable, which is the integra- measures, ecological, economic, policy, and scientific chal- tion of the effects of numerous environmental conditions on lenges remain (Katopodis 2005). Though it is desirable that the complete fish community. The productive capacity of fish environmental stewardship attributes of hydroelectric facilities habitats has most often been evaluated directly from measures parallel their performance at producing electricity, achieve- of fish abundance or productivity (Randall et al. 1995; Ran- ment of the former objective is impeded by the difficulties as- dall and Minns 2000; Scruton et al. 2005). The difficulties in sociated with accurately estimating the effects of hydropower estimating fish production have inspired attempts to identify on aquatic ecosystems. A better understanding of the effects of adequate surrogates or correlates of fish production (Rawson hydroelectric facilities on the productivity and the biodiversity 1952; Ryder 1965; Oglesby 1977; Randall 2003), yet there is of communities is imperative to reconcile industrial and envi- still no consensus on the methods and the metrics that should ronmental water requirements. be used to estimate PCFH on a routine basis or on the vari- ables that should be used to predict the effects of hydropower Hydroelectric facilities transform natural lakes and rivers on PCFH with sufficient statistical precision (Smokorowski into reservoirs and regulated rivers. When discharge is regulat- and Derbowka 2008; Smokorowski and Dutil 2008). Given ed for hydropower, five main flow characteristics are affected, its ecological significance and key role in the decision-making including magnitude, duration, timing (seasonality), recur- process, the productive capacity of fish habitats is taken as the rence frequency, and rates of change (Magilligan and Nislow central theme of the HydroNet research program. 2001, 2005). All affect riverine biota directly and indirectly via short-term and long-term impacts on fish behavior and HydroNet was awarded funding in 2010 from the Natu- habitat (Richter et al. 1996; Clarke et al. 2008). Production ral Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada rate (kg·ha−1·y−1) is generally taken as an integrated measure (NSERC) Strategic Network Program (SNG) and the NSERC of the degree to which organisms fulfill the three key ecologi- Collaborative Research and Development Program (CRD) to cal functions that will ensure the perpetuation of their popu- undertake a 5-year research program focusing on the definition lation: survival, growth, and reproduction. The importance of standard approaches to estimate PCFH, the identification of of maintaining fish production is embedded within thePolicy the best indices to represent PCFH, and the identification of for the Management of Fish Habitat (the policy; Department of key variables related to hydropower that affect PCFH. Study

Fisheries • vol 36 no 10 • october 2011 • www.fisheries.org 481 sites are distributed nationally (Figure 1), as are the fisheries provide an overview of the ongoing and future research activi- and aquatic scientists that comprise the network. HydroNet’s ties that will be conducted by the network, and describe some research program was developed based on industry and govern- lessons learned from implementation of the first presampling ment priorities, and an ongoing feedback process will continue year. This article is part of a series in Fisheries that is focused on to ensure its relevance (Figure 2). Partners directly involved NSERC Strategic Networks that are currently active in Cana- with HydroNet include Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO da and have specific relevance to fisheries and aquatic science Habitat Management Program), Manitoba Hydro, B.C. Hydro, (see Hasler et al. 2011 for introductory article). and Nalcor. Satellite partnerships have subsequently been formed with DFO Science (through the Center of Expertise on HydroNet Objectives Hydropower Impacts on Fish and Fish Habitat, CHIF) Brook- The general objective of NSERC’s HydroNet is to promote field Renewable Power Ltd., and numerous provincial govern- sustainable hydropower in Canada via a better understanding ment agencies. Here we describe the objectives of HydroNet, of the effects of hydroelectric operations on aquatic ecosystems. Through coordinated national efforts, NSERC’s HydroNet will supply new knowledge about the effects of hydropower on abi- otic and biotic processes. Science-based practical solutions will provide industry and government resource managers with new tools to assess, mitigate, and minimize potential impacts on aquatic ecosystems, improve the decision-making process asso- ciated with hydropower operations, and reduce conflict among stakeholders. By working to achieve the goal of sustainable hy- dropower in Canada, NSERC’s HydroNet’s specific objectives include the following: • improvement of approaches to estimate and model physical drivers of the productive capacity of fish habi- tats; Figure 1. Map of Canada showing the distribution of the short list of • definition of standardized protocols capable of estimat- potential sampling sites categorized as lake, reservoir, regulated river, and unregulated river. ing the productive capacity of fish habitats; • identification of the relative importance of chemical, physical, and biological drivers of the productive capac- ity of fish habitats and of large-scale (ecosystem-level) and small-scale (habitat patches) environmental condi- tions on this variable; • improved understanding of the effect of hydropower on key biological processes (e.g., effect of flow modi- fications on egg survival, relationship between envi- ronmental conditions affected by hydropower and fish growth, effect of the loss of connectivity of habitats on tropic linkages, effect of trash rack design, and reservoir management on fish entrainment in turbines); • comparison of the productive capacity of fish habitats and its environmental determinants over a range of eco- systems (regulated and unregulated) for which PCFH must be estimated to assess the effect of hydropower on fish; • development of modeling approaches that will facilitate the routine estimation of the effect of hydropower on the productive capacity of fish habitats.

HydroNet Research Themes The research program of NSERC’s HydroNet comprises three complementary project themes: (1) ecosystemic analy- sis of productive capacity of fish habitats in rivers, (2) mes- Figure 2. Schematic of the interactive process between academia, government, and industry used to develop the final NSERC proposal and oscale modeling of the productive capacity of fish habitats in how this interactive model will continue through the term of HydroNet. lakes and reservoirs, and (3) predicting the entrainment risk of

482 Fisheries • vol 36 no 10 • october 2011 • www.fisheries.org fish in hydropower reservoirs relative to generation operations Theme 3: Predicting the Entrainment Risk of by combining behavioral ecology and hydraulic engineering. Fish in Hydropower Reservoirs Relative to Gen- Each of these themes is outlined in the following sections, and eration Operations by Combining Behavioral projects imbedded under each theme are described in Table 1. Ecology and Hydraulic Engineering (Projects 3.1, Complementary projects supported by DFO CHIF and led by 3.2, 4.1, 4.3, and 4.4, Table 1) DFO scientists, as well as the first of what is hoped to be an Fish entrainment is the process in which fish are displaced expanding network of satellite projects, are also described in from reservoirs by water diversion through turbines or other Table 1. water release structures at dams. This can result in injury or death and reduce productivity of reservoir fish populations. As- Theme 1: Ecosystemic Analysis of the Correlates sessing fish entrainment risk at new hydropower intakes is one of Productive Capacity of Fish Habitats in Rivers of the requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assess- (Projects 1.1–1.10, 4.2, 4.5, and 5.1, Table 1) ment Act, and managing entrainment effects is an important The key objectives of this theme are to (1) assess the re- regulatory consideration at all operating hydroelectric facilities lationship between indices of the productive capacity of fish in Canada. Despite the importance of entrainment on regu- habitats (catch per unit effort, density, biomass, etc.) and lating fish populations, there is no widely accepted systematic large-scale environmental conditions (nutrients, water tem- way to assess the risk of resident fish entrainment. The objec- perature, geomorphology, etc.) in rivers with average annual tives of this theme are to (1) develop and parameterize a model discharge less than 300 m3•s−1, (2) compare such relationships of entrainment risk relative to biotic characteristics (species, among types of ecosystems (regulated and unregulated rivers), sex, size, spawning population) and dam operations that could (3) identify the environmental conditions that explain a sig- serve as an approach for future entrainment risk assessments nificant proportion of the variations in indices of PCFH either in Canada and beyond and (2) conduct laboratory physical within or among types of ecosystems, and (4) unveil the effect testing to assess the performance and suitability of mitigation of environmental conditions (many affected by hydropower) alternatives. on key biological attributes such as egg survival, fish growth, food web structure, and fish passage. Example Case Studies of Ongoing Projects Here we present three case studies as examples of research Theme 2: Mesoscale Modeling of the Productive activity in each of the three themes. Capacity of Fish Habitats in Lakes and Reservoirs (Projects 2.1–2.3, Table 1) Theme 1 Case Study: Long-Term Physical The objectives of this theme are to (1) develop sampling Transformations of Regulated Riverine Habitats protocols to estimate indices of PCFH on a routine basis in The overall objective of this project is to generate physical different types of ecosystems and habitats (weed beds, sandy habitat data (broken down by habitat types and reaches) across beaches, sublittoral, deep pelagic, etc.), (2) develop and com- pairs of dammed and unregulated (reference) rivers across Can- pare relationships between various indices of PCFH and envi- ada, which will help explain observed patterns in fish produc- ronmental conditions estimated for different types of habitats tivity. The Mississagi River, Ontario, below the Aubrey Falls in each ecosystem, and (3) identify the indices of PCFH that hydroelectric facility was selected for the case study because correlate best with estimates of fish production. This project of the availability of data (Figure 3). Objectives of the study will model ecosystems as a mosaic of habitat patches defined by relatively homogeneous environmental conditions (water depth, substrate composition, macrophyte cover, etc.). The use of habitat patches is expected to solve many of the problems that affect the validity of the estimation of PCFH, such as the identification of the best sampling protocol (to be used as a standard methodology), number and diversity of sampling sites, and number of fish species and life stages that should be stud- ied to adequately estimate the effect of hydropower on PCFH. Indices of PCFH, such as catch per unit of effort, fish density, biomass, growth, and production rate, will be estimated during 3 years in two ecosystems (one lake and one reservoir). Inter- annual variability in fish production rate will be estimated to define clearer patterns of long-term PCFH, an element that is central to the concept of PCFH but that is rarely estimated in Figure 3. Digital, ortho-rectified aerial photograph of the Mississagi the actual application of the Fisheries Act. River below the Aubrey Falls Generating Station, Mississagi River, Ontario (1992).

Fisheries • vol 36 no 10 • october 2011 • www.fisheries.org 483 TABLE 1. Projects being conducted under each theme of HydroNet. Theme 0 is networking, themes 1–3 are described in the text of the article, theme 4 is CHIF-funded projects, and theme 5 is related to a satellite project that recently joined HydroNet

No. TItle Lead Objectives 0.1 Networking Dr. Boisclair, University of Montreal Structuring, coordinating, integrating, expanding, and communicating network research activities 1.1 PCFH in rivers Dr. Boisclair Provide metrics of PCFH, quantify the role of environmental conditions on habitat use (by species and life stage), test the hypothesis that habitat quality models vary with fish density 1.2 Chemical drivers of the PCFH Dr. Rasmussen, University of Assess regional differences (or latitudinal similarities) in nutrient–fish com- Lethbridge munity relationships. Determine whether river vs. lake differences are related to depth 1.3 Flow regime of natural versus Dr. Lapointe, McGill University Characterize the impacts of river damming on a variety of ecosystem-related regulated rivers metrics of river flow regime alteration 1.4 Effects of dams on the thermal Dr. St-Hilaire, Institut National de Compare thermal regimes of regulated and unregulated rivers, develop geo- regime of rivers Recherche Scientifique statistical models to estimate temperature variability from physical metrics, compare statistical vs. deterministic models at one site 1.5 Long-term physical transforma- Dr. Lapointe, McGill University Assess impacts of hydro dams on downstream habitat structure: morphologic, tions of regulated rivers hydraulic and sedimentary conditions, riparian conditions, wetted channel, etc. 1.6 Winter stressors for fish in river: Dr. Hicks, University of Alberta; Quantify winter regime of rivers to identify environmental stressors that directly effects of flow regulation Dr. Cunjak, University of New influence fish habitat and productive capacity. Distinguish how those stressors Brunswick vary in regulated vs. unregulated systems in different regions 1.7 Egg survival in response to river Dr. Cunjak, University of New Determine whether salmonid egg survival and alevin development are related regulation Brunswick to hyporheic water quality dissolved oxygen (DO) and how this varies with depth, river stage, and winter flow regulation 1.8 Thermal stability downstream of Dr. Power, University of Waterloo Use oxygen stable isotopes analysis of otoliths to determine average fish ther- hydroelectric structures mal habitat use and how differences in temperatures experienced due to river regulation (vs. unregulated rivers) manifest in fish condition and growth 1.9 Effects of regional differences in Dr. Rasmussen, University of Establish how PCFH is influenced by fish biodiversity, how this differs among fish biodiversity on fish produc- Lethbridge geographic regions, and how it affects trophic relationships and habitat use by tion and trophic structure different species. Determine the effect of system fragmentation on PCFH 1.10 Hydraulic and biological evalua- Dr. Cooke, Carleton University Combined biological and hydraulic assessment of a fishway that does suc- tion of upstream sturgeon pas- cessfully pass sturgeon to inform the design of future fish passage facilities in sage at the Vianney-Legendre Canada Fishway 2.1 Hydroacoustic mapping of Dr. Rose, Memorial University Use hydroacoustic survey methods to map the bathymetry, bottom type, any physical conditions at the scale of special habitat features (e.g., macrophytes), fish distribution, and densities at habitat patches the scale of habitat heterogeneity 2.2 Detailed physical mapping of Dr. Bergeron, Institut National de Use and refine airborne mapping techniques previously developed for fluvial -en shallow areas of lakes and Recherche Scientifique vironments in shallow lake and reservoir shoreline environments to map aquatic reservoirs at the scale of habitat habitat such as substrate size, depth, and water temperature patches 2.3 Metrics of productive capacity Dr. Boisclair, University of Montreal Develop relationships between metrics of PCFH and environmental conditions in shallow areas of lakes and at a mesohabitat scale, estimate the relative effect of conditions (local, contex- reservoirs tual, biotic, abiotic) on habitat use, comparative analysis of habitat use models with different sampling strategies (time of day, gear) 3.1 Hydraulic component: develop- Dr. Zhu, University of Alberta Investigate thermal and hydraulic conditions upstream of four hydro dams ing a model of entrainment risk of varying size, operation, and configuration to develop an entrainment risk based on hydraulic conditions and framework for fish and assess the applicability of computational fluid dynamics forebay geometry modeling as a tool to predict entrainment risk 3.2 Biological component: strategies Dr. Cooke, Carleton University; Dr. Identify the biotic and abiotic factors that influence entrainment risk for key fish to reduce entrainment risk based Power, Waterloo species in one reservoir, including the thermal biology of fish. Integrate hydrau- on fish behavior and thermal lic and biological components to develop a model of entrainment risk relative to requirement biotic characteristics and dam operations 4.1 Thermal aspects of fish entrain- D. Patterson, DFO Directly linked to project 3.2 by providing scientific support and equipment, this ment risk in Kinbasket reservoir project will determine how reservoir thermal properties vary seasonally and with with relevance to other large respect to hydropower operations to influence entrainment risk for a variety of hydropower facilities in Canada key fish species 4.2 Longitudinal and lateral re- K. Clarke, DFO Assess the impact of the loss of connectivity among habitats, both longitudinal sponses in riverine communities and lateral, by focusing on ecological process and function and by quantify- to altered seasonal flow regimes ing linkages among abiotic factors and associated biotic responses (primary producers, invertebrate prey, and fishes)

484 Fisheries • vol 36 no 10 • october 2011 • www.fisheries.org TABLE 1. (continued). No. TItle Lead Objectives 4.3 Fish behavior in relation to trash Dr. Enders, DFO Evaluate the performance of trash rack designs from both a hydraulic racks and biological point of view, analyze the behavioral response of fish approaching trash racks in flume experiments, and monitor entrain- ment and impingement of fish on the trash racks at a hydro dam 4.4 Numerical investigation of tur- Dr. Ghamry, DFO Numerical investigation attributed to the closed conduit trash rack model, for bulent flows through trash racks use in providing insight into the effects of the trash rack bar spacing and bar in open channels and closed geometry on the flow pattern velocity distribution for closed conduit flows conduits 4.5 Evaluating changes in productive Dr. Bradford, DFO Establish the underpinnings of a scientifically defensible approach to evaluating capacity of mountain streams changes in productive capacity of small streams by examining the sensitivity of as a result of flow diversions for predictions of optimal flows to the assumptions of a British Columbia instream small hydro development flow model and levels of sampling intensity. Examine alternative metrics for flow–habitat relations 5.1 Experimental determination Dr. Smokorowski, DFO Use a before–after–control–impact design to assess the impacts of chang- of ramping rate effects on ing from restricted ramping rates to unlimited ramping rates at a peaking downstream biota: Magpie River, hydroelectric facility. Impacts to be assessed on hydrology, geomorphology, fish, Ontario invertebrates, food webs, and economics were to (1) refine methods for classifying and mapping river- and associated flow patterns can be lost by decreasing the area ine habitat features using high-resolution optical data sources, of convergent flow. Field studies scheduled for 2011 will test (2) identify and synthesize methods for quantifying riverine the effects of changes in divergent flow on fish habitat. Pre- habitat complexity from habitat units, and (3) refine analytical liminary results are consistent with the contention that very methods for detecting long-term changes in riverine habitat. low sediment loads and the presence of bedrock outcrops make The first two objectives required a review of the literature and rivers in the Canadian Shield slow to recover from hydrologic assessment of the suitability of habitat classification metrics for disturbance but resistant to morpho-sedimentary change com- other HydroNet sites. Here we focus on the third objective, pared to rivers that drain higher energy, sediment-rich catch- which involved an analysis of changes in habitat over time of ments. On a decadal time scale, analysis of changes in the two a 50-km reach downstream of the dam. Channel morphology horizontal dimensions indicated that the most responsive ele- and riparian vegetation between 1945 and 2009 were mapped ments of the mesoscale habitat units are the riparian communi- using digital, ortho-rectified aerial photographs (1945, 1948, ties. These communities expanded and contracted with shifts 1965, 1974, 1992), IKONOS, and Landsat satellite images in the hydrologic regime. These measurable effects have impli- (1985, 2002, 2009). Trends in historical discharge records were cations for smaller scale instream habitat features and aquatic also analyzed (1946 to present) using a cumulative departure inhabitants that have yet to be quantified. analysis (Klemes 1978). The Indicators of Hydrologic Altera- tion software (IHA7; The Nature Conservancy) was also used Theme 2 Case Study: Metrics of PCFH in Shal- to document 33 statistics of hydrologic alteration for the site. low Areas of Lakes and Reservoirs Estimation of PCFH in lentic ecosystems faces numerous Though a change of state (e.g., from a wandering to a me- challenges. First, these ecosystems are often large, which im- andering or braided channel) would have been possible based plies intensive sampling. Second, lakes and reservoirs consist on geomorphic theory and the degree of change in the hydro- of spatially heterogeneous mesohabitats defined by various logic regime (both natural and imposed), the case study reach environmental conditions (depth, temperature, substrate com- did not change state as a result of flow regulation (the dam was position, etc.). Third, fish of different species and life stages commissioned between 1966 and 1969) or because of long-term may require different habitat types for the different ecological shifts in mean annual discharge. However, instream habitat de- functions (survival, growth, reproduction). Fourth, habitat use creased in complexity, with increasing mean annual discharge may vary through time (seasonally or diurnally). Although the between 1960 and 1990. For example, floodplain islands were transformation of a river or lake into a reservoir has signifi- converted to bars through the loss of shrub cover. Lateral con- cant and complex effects on physical habitat, quantifying such nectivity increased between adjacent riparian wetlands and the changes or their effects on the fish community can be difficult. main channel and through the loss of forest and shrub vegeta- tion at the channel edge, implying an increase in area of diver- The specific objectives of this NSERC CRD are to (1) gent flow and in slackwater zones (Figure 3). Such an increase improve our ability to partition large lentic ecosystems into in area of divergent flow may provide more hydraulic refuge for a mosaic of mesohabitats, (2) augment our understanding of fish. However, refuge provided by structural elements such as the role played by different types of mesohabitats for different vegetation (aquatic, emergent, and terrestrial), large substrate, fish species and size classes, and (3) gain knowledge about daily

Fisheries • vol 36 no 10 • october 2011 • www.fisheries.org 485 variation in fish habitat use. Surveys will be conducted in one lected to understand the spatial ecology and thermal biology lake (Manigotagan Lake) and one reservoir (Lac du Bonnet) in of burbot (Lota lota) and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) using Manitoba. Multifrequency hydroacoustics and telemetry will acoustic telemetry. Telemetry studies were initiated in 2010 be used to map water depth, bottom type, aquatic macrophyte and 240 depth- and temperature-sensing transmitters were de- cover, fish density and movements, with conventional tech- ployed (see Figure 4). Toward the end of the 5-year project the niques used to quantify temperature, and provide samples of validated CFD models will be used to guide the design of the substrates and macrophyte cover in these ecosystems. Sampling field biological assessment of fish response to flow hydraulics gears possessing different selectivity (i.e., gill nets, seines, fyke and assist in the definition and evaluation of both fish entrain- nets) will be used to assess habitat use by fish in the littoral and ment risk models and mitigation alternatives for generating pelagic zones during day and night. stations and dam operations. Collectively this work will enable the development and parameterization of a model of entrain- This project will allow us to propose optimal sampling de- ment risk relative to biotic characteristics (sex, size, spawning signs to map physical and biological attributes of large lentic population) and dam operations that could serve as a model ecosystems. This work will also aid the development of predic- for future entrainment risk assessments in Canada and beyond. tive tools by identifying the relative effects of different types of The proposed study will help industry and DFO to assess fish environmental conditions (from local to landscape variables) entrainment, reduce entrainment risk, and optimize physical on habitat use by fish. Similarities in habitat use models for mitigation measures. combinations of species and life stages are expected to provide guidelines to define fish guilds (of similar habitat requirements) Application and Significance that may facilitate the development and transferability of One determinant of Canada’s sustainable development habitat use models and, hence, the estimation or prediction of and future economic strength is its ability to face the rising PCFH in lakes and reservoirs. demand and cost of energy. Hydropower generation may help to meet this challenge because water is plentiful in much of Theme 3 Case Study: Biological and Hydraulic Canada, yet the challenge will be to maintain the physical and Aspects of Entrainment Risk biological integrity of aquatic ecosystems. NSERC’s HydroNet Fish entrainment is the process in which fish are nonvo- will provide new knowledge and tools to ensure the sustainable litionally displaced from reservoirs by water diversion through development of hydropower in Canada. turbines or other water release structures at dams. To date, most of the efforts to quantify and reduce entrainment have The projects conducted under NSERC’s HydroNet will focused on downstream migrating salmonid smolts. Consider- train a large number of young scientists. The perspective, ably less research has focused on adults, particularly resident hands-on experience, knowledge, and skills that they will gain populations of fish, despite the fact that some populations rep- will provide a better understanding of the effects of hydropower resent important recreational and First Nations fisheries. Fish entrainment is a function of flow hydraulics and the behavioral characteristics of fish using habitats near dams and adjacent to intake structures. Many studies have failed to fully incor- porate hydraulics into fish entrainment studies because of the difficulty in accurately measuring three-dimensional flow fields with standard hydraulic methods. This significant knowledge gap has resulted in little guidance being available for optimiz- ing entrainment mitigation actions.

Consequently, this project is focused on the integration of hydraulic and biological components of resident fish entrain- ment risk to develop a generalized framework for assessing their entrainment risk. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) models will be used to study the intake-induced velocity field for different types of reservoirs (high dams vs. run-of-the-river types), different dam forebay geometries and intake arrange- ments/conditions, reservoir temperature stratifications, as well as hydropower operations. An engineering field program will Figure 4. Graduate student Lee Gutowsky (Carleton University) releases a tagged bull trout (salvelinus confluentus) that will be tracked for 3 also be conducted to study some site-specific issues, and the years using a whole-lake telemetry array as well as a fine-scale three- field measurements will be used to calibrate CFD models. At dimensional positioning array in the forebay of Mica Dam in Kinbasket one key reservoir (i.e., Kinbasket), biological data will be col- Reservoir, British Columbia.

486 Fisheries • vol 36 no 10 • october 2011 • www.fisheries.org on aquatic ecosystems, augment their capacity for finding solu- tive mandates while, in the future, significantly reducing the tions to challenges, and improve present and future academia– effort, time, and money required to ensure that the develop- industry–government relationships. NSERC’s HydroNet is a ment of new hydroelectric facilities and the modifications of multidisciplinary and multi-institutional partnership that will existing installations will preserve the productive capacity of promote the exchange of ideas, expertise, data, and solutions aquatic ecosystems (Egan 2005). Information garnered should among scientists and managers from all regions of Canada. also refine future research questions and approaches to issues NSERC’s HydroNet will also constitute a structure that will that HydroNet cannot currently study; for example, rivers with foster interactions with North American (e.g., Conte Anadro- flows greater than 300 m3•s−1. The knowledge developed col- mous Fish Laboratory–U.S. Geological Survey; Rushing Riv- laboratively with industry and government will help to reduce ers Institute, United States) and European (e.g., CEDREN, and resolve conflict by developing robust and transparent deci- Norway; CEMAGREF, France) research groups having similar sion support tools that are based on the best available biologi- interests. cal data. Such knowledge is essential to improve the balance of competing demands for limited water resources and to ensure Lessons Learned that hydropower is sustainable and maintains healthy aquatic HydroNet is a new network and has had only one, very ecosystems and a vibrant Canadian economy. important, presampling field season to date. On a practical side, though ideal sample designs can be achieved in propos- Acknowledgments als, in reality site selection has been one of the most challeng- NSERC’s HydroNet is funded by the NSERC Strategic ing tasks. Of the hundreds of hydroelectric dams in Canada, Network Grant program, NSERC Collaborative Research and only 16 regulated sites currently remain on the list of poten- Development Program, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Mani- tial candidate sites. Many were eliminated due to large size/ toba Hydro, B.C. Hydro, and Nalcor. We thank the mem- high flows, insufficient access to the river, and the inability to bers and partners of NSERC’s HydroNet. Provincial agencies comparatively sample the systems. Finalization of site selection contributing to the network include the Ontario Ministry of is pending an analysis of hydrological data yet to be obtained Natural Resources, the Quebec Ministry of Natural Resourc- and consideration of potential confounding factors (flow, tem- es, and Manitoba Water Stewardship. Case studies presented perature, nutrients, etc.). The proposed design for the reservoir were written by first project lead plus James John Luce, who modeling project had to be reduced by eliminating replicate contributed to case study 1. Shannon O’Connor, the network reservoirs due to the sheer size of candidate systems coupled manager, provided valuable information on the details of the with the desire to maintain complete spatial coverage. Finally, network components. The map of potential sampling locations on-site testing of sampling options has been key to developing was provided by the network database manager Carolle Djima. robust standard methods to be used for the duration at all sites. The Canadian Aquatic Resources Section of the American Fisheries Society coordinated the preparation and publication Maintaining the collaborative, cooperative, and integra- of this manuscript. tive nature of a network may be the biggest challenge of a na- tional research network. A clearly defined common goal brings References cohesion to the network, and creative collaborators allow the CEA (Canadian Electricity Association). 2009. Electricity Genera- adaptation of activities to move the science forward faster. tion in Canada by Province and Fuel Type, 2009 in TWh. Avail- Communication is critical to maintain linkages among pro- able from http://www.electricity.ca/industry-issues/electricity-in- jects, achieved via meetings of project committees, a research canada/industry-data.php (accessed September 2011). Clarke, K., T. C. Pratt, R. G. Randall, D. A. Scruton, and K. E. Smo- management committee, a science advisory committee, semi- korowski. 2008. Validation of the flow management pathway: ef- annual workshops, and annual symposia. The personal qual- fects of altered flow on fish habitat and fishes downstream from ities of our collaborators and partners are expected to preserve a hydropower dam. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and the cohesion among scientists and projects. Aquatic Sciences 2784:vi +111p. Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 1986. Policy for the manage- Conclusion ment of fish habitat. Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Ot- The broad impacts and management of flow regulation tawa, Ontario, Canada. across Canada requirecooperation and coordination among Egan, T. M. 2005. Good stewards: industry and government work to producers and regulators. Hydroelectric companies have as an protect fish and their habitat. Hydro Review 24(5):16–23. Hasler, C. T., G. C. Christie, J. Imhof, M. Power, and S. J. Cooke. objective to produce affordable energy required to support the 2011. A network approach to addressing strategic fisheries and Canadian economy while protecting ecosystems and, in partic- aquatic sciences issues at a national scale: an introduction to a ular, preserving PCFH. Government agencies have as a man- series of case studies from Canada. Fisheries 36(9): 450–453. date to protect the integrity of ecosystems, biodiversity, and Katopodis, C. 2005. Developing a toolkit for fish passage, ecological productive capacity. The knowledge gained and tools produced flow management and fish habitat works. Journal of Hydraulic by NSERC’s HydroNet will help partners to fulfill their respec-

Fisheries • vol 36 no 10 • october 2011 • www.fisheries.org 487 Research 43:451–467. Klemes, V. 1978. Physically based stochastic hydrologic analysis. Ad- vances in Hydroscience 11:285–356. Magilligan, F. J., and K. H. Nislow. 2001. Long-term changes in re- gional hydrologic regime following impoundment in a humid- climate watershed. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 37:1551–1569. Magilligan, F. J., and K. H. Nislow. 2005. Changes in hydrologic re- gime by dams. Geomorphology 71(1–2):61–78. Oglesby, R. T. 1977. Relationship of fish yield to lake phytoplankton standing crop, production and morphoedaphic factors. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 34:2271–2279. Poff, N. L., J. D. Allan, M. B. Bain, J. R. Karr, J. R. Prestegaard, B. D. Richter, R. E. Sparks, and J. C. Stromberg. 1997. The natural flow regime—a paradigm for river conservation and restoration. Bioscience 47:769–784. Quigley, J. T., and D. J. Harper. 2006. Effectiveness of fish habitat compensation in Canada in achieving no net loss. Environmen- tal Management 37:351–366. Randall, R. G. 2003. Fish productivity and habitat productive capac- ity: definitions, indices, units of field measurement, and a need for standardized terminology. Canadian Science Advisory Secre- tariat Research Document 2003/061. Randall, R. G., J. R. M. Kelso, and C. K. Minns. 1995. Fish production in fresh waters—are rivers more productive than lakes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 52:631–643. Randall, R. G., and C. K. Minns. 2000. Use of fish production per unit biomass ratios for measuring the productive capacity of fish habitats. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 57:1657–1667. Rawson, D. S. 1952. Mean depth and the fish production of large lakes. Ecology 33:513–521. Richter, B. D., J. V. Baumgartner, J. Powell, and D. P. Braun. 1996. A method for assessing hydrologic alteration within ecosystems. Conservation Biology 10:1163–1174. Rosenberg, D. M., F. Berkes, R. A. Bodaly, R. E. Hecky, C. A. Kelly, and J. W. M. Rudd. 1997. Large-scale impacts of hydroelectric development. Environmental Reviews 5(1):27–54. Ryder, R. A. 1965. A method for estimating the potential fish pro- duction of North temperate lakes. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 94(3):214–218. Scruton, D. A., K. D. Clarke, M. M. Roberge, J. F. Kelly, and M. B. Dawe. 2005. A case study of habitat compensation to ameliorate impacts of hydroelectric development: effectiveness of re-water- ing and habitat enhancement of an intermittent flood overflow channel. Journal of Fish Biology 67:244–260. Smokorowski, K. E., and D. Derbowka. 2008. Methods of measuring productive capacity in Canada: summaries for review at a nation- al workshop, October 15–16, 2007. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2815: iv + 158p. Smokorowski, K. E., and J. D. Dutil. 2008. Proceedings of the work- shop to compare methods to quantify the productive capacity of fish habitat impacted by hydro operations. Canadian Science Ad- visory Secretariat Proceedings Series 2008/002, Ottawa, Canada Smokorowski, K. E., K. J. Withers, and J. R. M. Kelso. 1998. Does habitat creation contribute to management goals? An evaluation of literature documenting freshwater habitat rehabilitation or enhancement projects. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2249: vi + 74p.

488 Fisheries • vol 36 no 10 • october 2011 • www.fisheries.org Feature: CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT

Conservation and Management of Crayfishes: Lessons from Pennsylvania

David A. Lieb Conservación y Manejo de Langostil- Invertebrate zoologist/non-game biologist, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission and Western Pennsylvania Conservancy, Bellefonte, Pennsyl- las: Lecciones de Pennsylvania vania, [email protected]. (Note: During this project, Lieb was a Ph.D. stu- dent and graduate research assistant at The Pennsylvania State University, RESUMEN: las langostillas de Norteamérica son di- University Park, Pennsylvania.) versas, ecológicamente relevantes y considerablemente amenazadas. Infortunadamente, a la fecha la infor- Raymond W. Bouchard mación es escasa lo cual dificulta su conservación y Academy Fellow, Patrick Center for Environmental Research, The Acad- manejo. En Pennsylvania y estados aledaños, esfuerzos emy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania recientes han permitido determinar el estado de conser- Robert F. Carline vación de varias langostillas autóctonas y desarrollar es- Fisheries biologist, U.S. Geological Survey (retired) trategias de manejo para las mismas. Debido a su rareza, proximidad a centros urbanizados e introducción de las Ted R. Nuttall langostillas (foráneas), la especie (Puncticam- Professor of Biology, Department of Biology, Lock Haven University, Lock barus) sp., miembro desconocido del complejo Cambarus Haven, Pennsylvania acuminatus, se encuentra en peligro crítico en Pennsyl- vania y posiblemente también en el resto de su distri- John R. Wallace bución. Orconectes limosus presenta una distribución Professor of Biology, Department of Biology, Millersville University, Mill- más amplia; sin embargo recientemente ha habido una ersville, Pennsylvania pérdida importante de sus poblaciones, particularmente Carrie L. Burkholder en Pennsylvania y al norte de Maryland, lugar donde su CET Engineering Services, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania distribución se ha reducido (retrocediendo hacia el este) en unos unos 200 km. Es muy posible que los congéneres introducidos hayan jugando un papel predominante en estas pérdidas. Cambarus bartonii bartonii, aunque ABSTRACT: North America’s crayfish fauna is diverse, ecologi- extirpada de algunas zonas, continúa siendo de amplia cally important, and highly threatened. Unfortunately, up-to-date distribución y no se encuentra en peligro inmediato en information is scarce, hindering conservation and management términos de conservación. A la luz de estos resultados, se efforts. In Pennsylvania and nearby states, recent efforts allowed discute la importancia relativa que las barreras (presas), us to determine the conservation status of several native crayfishes protección ambiental, programas educativos y regulacio- and develop management strategies for those species. Due to rarity nes han tenido en cuanto a la prevención de invasio- and proximity to urban centers and introduced (exotic) crayfishes, nes y conservación de langostillas nativas. Así mismo se Cambarus (Puncticambarus) sp., an undescribed member of the presentan iniciativas de manejo centradas en dichos fac- Cambarus acuminatus complex, is critically imperiled in Pennsyl- tores. Se resalta la necesidad de métodos para eliminar vania and possibly range-wide. Orconectes limosus is more wide- especies exóticas y monitorear las nativas. Estas ideas, spread; however, recent population losses have been substantial, aunque diseñadas para una fauna regional particular, especially in Pennsylvania and northern Maryland, where its range entrañan una aplicabilidad más amplia y beneficiarían has declined (retreated eastward) by greater than 200 km. Intro- diversas langostillas Norteamericanas. duced congeners likely played a major role in those losses. Although extirpated from some areas, Cambarus bartonii bartonii remains widespread and is not an immediate conservation concern. In light Introduction of these findings, the role of barriers (e.g., dams), environmental North America is home to a diverse, ecologically impor- protection, educational programs, and regulations in preventing tant crayfish fauna that is threatened by human activities (Mas- crayfish invasions and conserving native crayfishes is discussed, and ter et al. 1998; Wilcove et al. 1998; Lodge et al. 2000a; Taylor management initiatives centered on those factors are presented. The et al. 2007). Until recently, the conservation and management need for methods to eliminate exotics and monitor natives is high- of those species has been a low priority for most state, federal, lighted. Although tailored to a specific regional fauna, these ideas and academic institutions. The recent publication of several have broad applicability and would benefit many North American large-scale conservation assessments, which suggest that about crayfishes. half of North America’s crayfishes are imperiled across all or parts of their range (Taylor et al. 1996, 2007; Master et al. 1998, 2000), greatly increased awareness and interest in the group.

Fisheries • vol 36 no 10 • october 2011 • www.fisheries.org 489 Although more focused efforts in particular regions followed, aim of many of these management strategies is to prevent ad- the accurate classification (e.g., vulnerable, secure) of many ditional crayfish introductions. Successful prevention is of vital species remains hampered by a lack of up-to-date distributional importance because introduced (exotic) crayfishes are one of and ecological information (Taylor et al. 2007; Simmons and the biggest threats to native crayfishes in North America and Fraley 2010). This is problematic because such classifications elsewhere (Lodge et al. 2000a; Taylor 2002; Taylor et al. 2007). often provide the basis for assigning conservation priorities at Although stopping the spread of exotic crayfish is difficult once the local and national levels (Possingham et al. 2002). Thus, they become widespread (Peters and Lodge 2009), the distribu- incorrect classifications may be costly, resulting in biodiversity tions of most introduced crayfishes in eastern Pennsylvania are losses and wasted resources. still limited (Bouchard et al. 2007; Lieb et al. 2007a, 2011). Thus, in eastern Pennsylvania, as in much of North America, In Pennsylvania and nearby states, recent efforts com- there is still time to stop the spread of introduced crayfishes bined with historical data (Table 1) allowed us to accurately and preserve the native stocks that remain. Although tailored classify most of eastern Pennsylvania’s native, surface-dwelling to a specific fauna, the management strategies presented here- crayfish species: (1) Cambarus bartonii bartonii; (2) Cambarus in have broad applicability and would likely benefit many of (Puncticambarus) sp., an undescribed member of the Cambarus North America’s crayfishes, as well as other aquatic inverte- acuminatus complex; and (3) Orconectes limosus. Our ability brate species of concern. to assess changes in the crayfish fauna at individual sites and across the landscape was a key element in this process. We also Methods developed a number of management strategies that should aid Assessing Changes at Individual Sites and across in the conservation of those species. the Landscape Eleven sites in the Potomac and Susquehanna drainages of Because Procambarus clarkii, Cambarus robustus, Orconectes Pennsylvania that historically supported O. limosus and/or C. obscurus, Orconectes rusticus, and Orconectes virilis have been b. bartonii were resurveyed (Table 2). Nine were from Ortmann introduced to eastern Pennsylvania and Procambarus acutus has (1906); two were from the United States National Museum, greatly expanded its range in the region as a result of human Smithsonian Institution (USNM 46320 and 48413 [Conoy activities (Bouchard et al. 2007; Lieb et al. 2007a, 2011), the Creek]; USNM 310622 [Penns Creek tributary]). USNM data included catch numbers for each species; Ort-

TABLE 1. Historical and contemporary crayfish studies that aided in the development of the con- mann’s data were presence/absence. In most cases, servation classifications (e.g., vulnerable, secure) and management strategies provided herein. historical site descriptions were limited to stream Studies are listed by state (United States) or province (Canada). “Statewide” refers to studies and town names, and contemporary collections that include most of the state; NPS=National Park Service, PA=Pennsylvania. were made as close to those towns as possible. The State/province Coverage Source exception was a site whose historical description Historical was “tributary of Penns Creek, two miles west of Maryland Statewide Meredith and Schwartz 1960 New Berlin.” Because the name of the stream was Patapsco River drainage Schwartz et al. 1963 unknown, we surveyed Sweitzers Run and Tusca- Statewide Crocker 1957 rora Creek, the only major Penns Creek tributar- Pennsylvania Statewide Ortmann 1906 ies located less than 4.8 km (3 miles) west of New Statewide Bouchard et al. 2007a Berlin. West Northern part of the state Ortmann 1906 Contemporary Contemporary collections included a thor- Maryland Statewide Kilian et al. 2010 ough search of multiple riffle-pool sequences and New York Upper Susquehanna River drainage Kuhlmann and Hazelton 2007 all available habitat types, which is an effective Schoharie Creek drainage Daniels 1998 method for determining community composition North Carolina Western part of the state Simmons and Fraley 2010 and compiling species lists for individual sites (see Pennsylvania Statewide with emphasis on eastern PA Bouchard et al. 2007 Bouchard et al. 2007; Lieb et al. 2007a, 2011 for NPS properties across the state Lieb et al. 2007a Valley Creek Lieb et al. 2007b additional details). Historical collection methods Valley Creek Lieb et al. 2008 are available from Ortmann (1906) or are un- Southeastern part of the state Lieb and Bhattarai 2009 Southeastern part of the state Lieb et al. 2011 known (USNM data). Resampling efforts at O. limosus and/or C. b. bartonii sites in the Delaware Statewide Jezerinac et al. 1995 Statewide Loughman et al. 2009 basin of Pennsylvania and nearby states are de- Statewide Loughman and Welsh 2010 scribed elsewhere (Schwartz et al. 1963; Daniels Eastern Potomac River drainage Swecker et al. 2010 1998; Kuhlmann and Hazelton 2007; Loughman Ontario South-central part of the province Edwards et al. 2009 et al. 2009; Kilian et al. 2010; Loughman and aIncludes historical museum records. Welsh 2010; Swecker et al. 2010; Lieb et al. 2011).

490 Fisheries • vol 36 no 10 • october 2011 • www.fisheries.org TABLE 2. Historical and contemporary crayfish collections from resampled sites in the Susquehanna (S) and Potomac (P) River drain- ages of Pennsylvania. Historical data were collected in 1912 (Conoy Creek), 1956 (Penns Creek tributary), or were taken from Ortmann (1906), who did not provide collection dates for individual sites. Contemporary data were collected in 2006 and 2007. R=Raystown, Br=Branch, Cr=Creek, R=River, Trib=Tributary, NA=Not available, bartonii=Cambarus bartonii bartonii, limosus=Orconectes limosus, obscurus=Orconectes obscurus, rusticus=Orconectes rusticus, virilis=Orconectes virilis.

Stream Lat, Long Historical Contemporary (drainage) County Nearby town (decimal°) Species n Species n Back Cr (P) Franklin Williamson 39.85422, −77.79622 limosus NA virilis 18 Conococheague Cr (P) Franklin Chambersburg 39.96102, −77.64832 bartonii NA bartonii 1 limosus NA obscurus 8 virilis 11 Conococheague Cr (P) Franklin Williamson 39.84675, −77.79425 limosus NA bartonii 1 obscurus 10 virilis 37 Bald Eagle Cr (S) Centre Milesburg 40.94309, −77.78700 bartonii NA obscurus 25 limosus NA Conoy Cr (S) Lancaster Bainbridge 40.08473, −76.66097 bartonii 20 rusticus 82 Conodoquinet Cr (S) Cumberland West Fairview 40.25543, −76.92745 limosus NA rusticus 22 Fishing Cr (S) Columbia Bloomsburg 40.99537, −76.47353 limosus NA obscurus 26 Montour Cr (S) Perry Green Park 40.35842, −77.31798 bartonii NA obscurus 3 limosus NA rusticus 55 R Br Juniata R (S) Bedford Bedford 40.02013, −78.50278 limosus NA obscurus 7 Trib of Penns Cr (S) Union/Snyder New Berlin Two possibilitiesa limosus 1 bartonii 10b obscurus 17b rusticus 56b Yellow Breeches Cr (S) Cumberland/York New Cumberland 40.22395, −76.86070 limosus NA rusticus 39

a40.87208, -77.01345 (Sweitzers Run) or 40.86767, -77.00650 (Tuscarora Creek); see methods for further explanation. bTotal for Sweitzers Run and Tuscarora Creek.

Assessments of change at larger scales were possible be- Conservation Classifications cause of the availability of contemporary and historical crayfish Conservation classifications from published sources and data from a substantial part of the native ranges of C. b. barto- updated classifications developed for this study are provided in nii, C. (P.) sp., and O. limosus (see Table 1 and range informa- Table 3. Published classifications are from the American Fish- tion in Hobbs 1989; Jezerinac et al. 1995; Lieb et al. 2011). eries Society (AFS) Endangered Species Committee (Taylor et Coverage of Pennsylvania, Maryland, and West Virginia was al. 2007) and the National Heritage Network (NHN; Nature- especially complete, allowing a particularly clear picture of Serve 2010). Updated classifications relied heavily on range change in those areas. extent, number of populations, changes at individual sites and across landscapes, and threats to existing populations and were To illustrate change in Pennsylvania, maps showing his- based on criteria and classification definitions provided by torical and contemporary crayfish distributions were created (Figures 1–5). For O. limosus, historical data were collected TABLE 3. Conservation classifications for several of eastern Pennsylvania’s na- prior to 1957 and contemporary data were collected from 1984 tive crayfishes. Abbreviations used: CS=Currently stable; G5, S5 (species clas- to 2007 (no data available from 1957 to 1983). For O. obscu- sification) and T5 (subspecies classification)=Secure; S4=Apparently secure; S3=Vulnerable; S1=Critically imperiled; NL=Not listed; AFS=American Fisher- rus, historical data were collected prior to 1912 and contempo- ies Society; NHN=National Heritage Network; C.=Cambarus; O.=Orconectes; rary data were collected from 1965 to 2007 (no data available b.=bartonii; P.=Puncticambarus. Updated classifications were developed for from 1912 to 1964). For C. b. bartonii, the data were split ap- this study. An asterisk (*) indicates that more information is needed to update the classification. See methods for further explanation of classification proce- proximately in half: historical data were collected prior to 1960 dures and sources. and contemporary data were collected from 1964 to 2006 (no Global Pennsylvania data available from 1960 to 1963). For recent invaders, only Species AFS NHN Updated NHN Updated contemporary data were available (O. rusticus: 1976 to 2006, O. virilis: 1986 to 2007). Some data could not be mapped be- C. b. bartonii CS G5T5 G5T5 S5 S5 cause of incomplete site descriptions (e.g., only a county name C. (P.) sp. NL NL * NL S1 provided). Similar maps for Maryland were published by Kilian O. limosus CS G5 * S4 S3 et al. (2010).

Fisheries • vol 36 no 10 • october 2011 • www.fisheries.org 491 Figure 1. Map of eastern Pennsylvania with historical and contemporary Orconectes limosus collection sites. Sites from Ortmann (1906) are plotted separately from the remaining historical data. From east to west, the Delaware, Susquehanna, and Potomac River drainages are delineated. For sim- plicity, streams that flow directly into the Chesapeake Bay are included in the Susquehanna drainage. Historical O. limosus sites in the Susquehanna and Potomac drainages that were resurveyed for crayfishes are circled; O. limosus was not found at any of them. Because the Back and Conoco- cheague Creek sites near the town of Williamson (Potomac drainage) are close together, their site markers overlap. See Table 2 and Methods for additional details. Modified from Bouchard et al. (2007).

Figure 2. Map of eastern Pennsylvania with historical and contemporary Orconectes obscurus collection sites. The Ortmann (1906) site is plotted separately from the other historical site. From east to west, the Delaware, Susquehanna, and Potomac River drainages are delineated. For simplic- ity, streams that flow directly into the Chesapeake Bay are included in the Susquehanna drainage. See Table 2 and Methods for additional details. Modified from Bouchard et al. (2007).

492 Fisheries • vol 36 no 10 • october 2011 • www.fisheries.org Figure 3. Map of eastern Pennsylvania with Orconectes rusticus collection sites. From east to west, the Delaware, Susquehanna, and Potomac River drainages are delineated. For simplicity, streams that flow directly into the Chesapeake Bay are included in the Susquehanna drainage. See Table 2 and Methods for additional details. Modified from Bouchard et al. (2007).

Figure 4. Map of eastern Pennsylvania with Orconectes virilis collection sites. From east to west, the Delaware, Susquehanna, and Potomac River drainages are delineated. For simplicity, streams that flow directly into the Chesapeake Bay are included in the Susquehanna drainage. Because the Back and Conococheague Creek sites near the town of Williamson (Potomac drainage) are close together, their site markers overlap. See Table 2 and Methods for additional details. Modified from Bouchard et al. (2007).

Fisheries • vol 36 no 10 • october 2011 • www.fisheries.org 493 Figure 5. Map of eastern Pennsylvania with historical and contemporary Cambarus bartonii bartonii collection sites. Sites from Ortmann (1906) are plotted separately from the remaining historical data. From east to west, the Delaware, Susquehanna, and Potomac River drainages are delineated. For simplicity, streams that flow directly into the Chesapeake Bay are included in the Susquehanna drainage. Historical C. b. bartonii sites in the Susquehanna and Potomac drainages that were resurveyed for crayfishes are enclosed by circles; C. b. bartonii was not found at three of them. See Table 2 and Methods for additional details. Modified from Bouchard et al. (2007).

NHN. Due to the availability of historical and contemporary (Lieb and Bhattarai 2009; Lieb et al. 2011). All four popula- data, we were able to develop updated classifications for Penn- tions are in a rapidly urbanizing area within approximately 30 sylvania (Table 3); those for Maryland and West Virginia are km of one of North America’s largest cities (Philadelphia; Lieb provided elsewhere (Kilian et al. 2010; Loughman and Welsh et al. 2011). 2010). An updated range-wide classification is provided for C. b. bartonii. The range-wide status of O. limosus and C. (P.) sp. Outside of Pennsylvania, the C. acuminatus complex oc- is discussed; however, updated classifications at that scale await curs in central Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and South the completion of additional taxonomic, genetic, and distribu- Carolina (Meredith and Schwartz 1960; Taylor et al. 2007; tional studies. Kilian et al. 2010). C.(P.) sp. is not one of the described spe- cies in the complex from North Carolina and South Carolina Conservation Classifications (Lieb et al. 2008), where the complex is reasonably well known Cambarus (Puncticambarus) sp. (Cooper 2001, 2006; Cooper and Cooper 2003). Much less is Cambarus (P.) sp. was recently discovered in Pennsylvania known to the north of the Carolinas, where additional taxo- and has an extremely limited distribution in the state (Boucha- nomic, distributional, and possibly genetic work is needed to rd et al. 2007; Lieb et al. 2007b, 2008, 2011). More specifically, determine whether members of the complex consist of one the species is only known from 13 sites in a small area (ap- widely distributed species or multiple species with more re- proximately 220 km2) of southeastern (SE) Pennsylvania. Only stricted ranges. four streams (Crum, Darby, Pickering, and Valley creeks) are known to support populations of C. (P. ) sp. One of those popu- Regardless, because historical collections from Pennsyl- lations (Valley Creek) was recently invaded by O. rusticus and vania do not include the C. acuminatus complex (Ortmann appears to be in decline; the others are located close to dense 1906), C. (P.) sp. is either an introduced species or a recently populations of several exotic crayfishes, including O. rusticus discovered native. Generally, the presence of a species where

494 Fisheries • vol 36 no 10 • october 2011 • www.fisheries.org it was historically absent would suggest an introduction; how- ble 3) and in need of conservation attention. In other states, ever, historical data are not available for any of the sites where crayfishes with similarly restricted ranges (known from 9 to 27 C. (P.) sp. is found (Ortmann 1906; Lieb et al. 2011). sites) often garner conservation attention (Taylor and Schuster 2004; Westhoff et al. 2006; Eversole and Welch 2010), and Some authors cite the presence of disjunct distributions as a number of species of conservation concern in Pennsylvania evidence for crayfish introductions (Bouchard 1976b; Crock- have wider distributions and are less threatened than C. (P.) er 1979; Jezerinac et al. 1995). Although the distribution of sp. (see Felbaum et al. 1995). Although undescribed, the lack the C. acuminatus complex is clearly disjunct, with popula- of a specific epithet should not prevent C. (P.) sp. from being a tions in Pennsylvania separated from those in Maryland by conservation priority (see Bouchard 1976a; Harris 1990; Jelks approximately 125 km (Meredith and Schwartz 1960; Kilian et al. 2008; and others, which included undescribed species in et al. 2010; Lieb et al. 2011), introductions are probably not lists of imperiled crayfishes and fishes). the cause. First, members of the C. acuminatus complex (acu- minatus species) are not typically introduced outside of their If the acuminatus species in Pennsylvania is different from native ranges (Hobbs et al. 1989; Rodriguez and Suarez 2001; those to the south, then range-wide conservation attention Taylor et al. 2007), probably because they are generally not and inclusion on lists of globally imperiled species (e.g., AFS, sold as bait or through biological warehouses. Second, natu- NHN) may be warranted, as has already been done for two acu- rally adjacent but disjunct ranges have been documented for minatus species (Cambarus hystricosus, Cambarus johni) known other Puncticambarus species in eastern North America (Hobbs from approximately 25 to 55 locations (Cooper and Cooper 1969). Third, it is possible that additional populations of the 2003; Cooper 2006; Taylor et al. 2007; Simmons and Fraley C. acuminatus complex once occurred in northern Maryland 2010). Even if the Pennsylvania acuminatus species occurs and southern Pennsylvania but that anthropogenic disturbanc- elsewhere, such actions may be justified if Pennsylvania popu- es, such as crayfish introductions and urbanization, led to their lations exhibit adaptations not present to the south, making elimination, resulting in the disjunct distribution currently ob- them important for maintaining the genetic variability of the served. This is especially likely along the I-95 corridor from species (see Hamr 1998 for similar discussions regarding Can- Washington, D.C. to Philadelphia, which is highly degraded ada’s crayfishes and Hunter and Hutchinson 1994 and Lesica and infested with exotic crayfishes (see Bouchard et al. 2007; and Allendorf 1995 for more general discussions of the value Elmore and Kaushal 2008; Lieb et al. 2011). Such a scenario of peripheral populations). Additionally, given the restricted is similar to that suspected for another Puncticambarus species, distribution of the C. acuminatus complex in Maryland (less Cambarus veteranus, which was believed to occur in two dis- than 10 occurrences since 1989 and less than 30 overall; see junct clusters of sites (one in West Virginia and one near the Figure 4 in Kilian et al. 2010), even if the species in Pennsylva- border of Virginia and Kentucky) due, at least partly, to the nia is the same as that in Maryland, broader scale actions may adverse effects of coal mining in intervening areas (Jezerinac et be warranted. Overall, C. (P.) sp. is probably one of the most al. 1995). Finally, it is possible that in Pennsylvania and Mary- endangered aquatic species in the state and possibly in eastern land the range of the C. acuminatus complex is naturally dis- North America (if its range is limited to Pennsylvania) and, junct but the degree of separation between clusters of sites has without management action, faces an uncertain future. been exaggerated by extirpations in intervening areas. Orconectes limosus Given these possibilities, the most likely scenario is that Although O. limosus records exist for a large swath of the one or more species in the acuminatus complex once occupied Atlantic drainage of eastern North America (Virginia north- a wider range in Maryland and Pennsylvania (although their ward to Canada; Ortmann 1906; Crocker 1957, 1979; Francois distributions may have always been restricted as is common 1959; Meredith and Schwartz 1960; Hobbs 1989; McAlpine for species of Puncticambarus; Hobbs 1969, 1989) but that hu- et al. 1991; Jezerinac et al. 1995; Lambert et al. 2007), recent man activities reduced the range of the complex to two relic large-scale surveys indicate that the species has been extirpat- groups of populations. Therefore, C. (P.) sp. is likely native to ed from a substantial part of its former range. For example, in Pennsylvania and has a very limited distribution in the state. Pennsylvania, the range of O. limosus has declined (retreated The absence of C. (P.) sp. from the historical record is not eastward) by approximately 225 km and the species has nearly surprising given that past surveys did not include some parts of been eliminated from the Susquehanna and Potomac basins SE Pennsylvania (Ortmann 1906). Thus, although historical (Figure 1; Bouchard et al. 2007). Resampling efforts at or near surveys were sufficient to characterize the distribution of wide- historical sites in those basins yielded hundreds of introduced spread species such as O. limosus and C. b. bartonii, very rare congeners but no O. limosus (Table 2; Table 1 in Bouchard ones such as C. (P.) sp. could have been missed. et al. 2007). Except for the presence of O. limosus in a few tributaries of the North Branch Potomac River, similar range Due to rarity and proximity to urban centers and exotic reductions have occurred in northern Maryland (Kilian et al. crayfishes, C. (P.) sp. is clearly imperiled in Pennsylvania (Ta- 2010). The prevalence of introduced congeners in areas that

Fisheries • vol 36 no 10 • october 2011 • www.fisheries.org 495 Photo Spread 1. Densities of Orconectes rusticus (shown in all three pictures) are often extremely high in invaded systems such as the Susquehanna River in Pennsylvania (lower left and upper). Photos by K. Kelly (lower left and upper) and D. Lieb and P. Mooney (lower right).

496 Fisheries • vol 36 no 10 • october 2011 • www.fisheries.org Photo Spread 2. Cambarus bartonii bartonii (left) and Orconectes limosus (right) are native to eastern Pennsylvania. Photos by C. Swecker and T. Jones (left) and D. Funk (right).

Photo Spread 3. Cambarus (Puncticambarus) sp., an undescribed member of the Cambarus acuminatus complex, has an extremely limited distribu- tion in Pennsylvania. Photos by J. Fetzner. lost populations of O. limosus suggests that crayfish introduc- These findings prompted Bouchard et al. (2007) to spec- tions likely played a major role in those losses (Figures 1–4, ulate that O. limosus may eventually be eliminated from the Table 2; Bouchard et al. 2007; Kilian et al. 2010), although Piedmont of Pennsylvania and Maryland, persisting only in other factors may have also been important. the Coastal Plain where it may be better able to compete with introduced crayfishes. Unfortunately, Pennsylvania’s Coastal More focused efforts in the Patapsco drainage of Maryland, Plain is small, densely populated, and extensively modified the upper Susquehanna drainage of New York, the Potomac (Bouchard et al. 2007), with additional alterations likely. drainage of West Virginia, and the lower Delaware drainage of Maryland’s Coastal Plain is larger and less populated but also Pennsylvania also documented the frequent replacement of O. has a substantial human footprint (King et al. 2005; Utz et al. limosus by introduced congeners (Schwartz et al. 1963; Kuhl- 2010), which will undoubtedly increase as the region’s popula- mann and Hazelton 2007; Loughman et al. 2009; Loughman and tion centers, including Washington, D.C., and Baltimore, con- Welsh 2010; Swecker et al. 2010; Lieb et al. 2011). Because the tinue to expand. lower Delaware drainage of Pennsylvania and nearby areas are an important reservoir of genetic variability for O. limosus (Fili- Although recent losses have been substantial, it is impor- pová et al. 2011), extirpations from that area may have implica- tant to note that some of the populations that have been lost tions for the long-term viability and conservation status of O. from the mid-Atlantic may not have been native to begin with limosus in the state and the region (see Ehrlich and Daily 1993; (see Ortmann 1906 and Bouchard et al. 2007 for discussions Fetzner and Crandall 2002; and Luck et al. 2003 for discussions of the potential influence of man-made canals on O. limosus of the importance of genetic variability to species persistence). dispersal). Nonetheless, given the magnitude of the losses and

Fisheries • vol 36 no 10 • october 2011 • www.fisheries.org 497 the threats that O. limosus faces, the populations that remain immediate threat to the species. However, it is possible that in Pennsylvania and Maryland have significant conservation extirpations may eventually reduce the genetic variability and value at the state and regional levels. long-term viability of C. b. bartonii in some areas. Although such concerns are often expressed for species with restricted This is ironic given that O. limosus has been introduced to ranges and small population sizes, even widespread crayfish spe- Europe and Canada and has rapidly expanded its range, often cies can suffer substantial reductions in genetic variability due at the expense of native crayfishes (Hamr 1998; Lambert et al. to anthropogenic disturbances (Buhay and Crandall 2005). 2007; Taylor et al. 2007). As a result, O. limosus is viewed as a Nonetheless, because resources are limited, it is important to pest across much of its nonnative range (Hamr 2002; Filipová emphasize that C. b. bartonii is not an immediate conservati- et al. 2011). Nonetheless, the conservation of native O. limosus on concern regionally or globally (Table 3; Kilian et al. 2010; is warranted because introduced populations lack the genetic Loughman and Welsh 2010; Simmons and Fraley 2010). diversity that is present in native stocks (Filipová et al. 2011). Management Needs and Implications Thus, although O. limosus is listed as globally secure/ Given the imperiled status of C. (P.) sp. and O. limosus stable by AFS and NHN (Table 3), recent findings indicate in Pennsylvania and elsewhere, efforts to prevent crayfish in- that native stocks may not be as safe as previously thought. troductions and preserve the habitat and water quality at sites In Pennsylvania, range reductions and the threat posed by that support those species should be a management priority. In exotic crayfishes prompted us to downgrade O. limosus from subsequent sections, we describe regulatory, educational, and apparently secure to vulnerable (Table 3). In West Virginia, conservation initiatives, which should aid in this regard. We O. limosus is listed as critically imperiled and may have been also discuss the need for methods to safely eradicate introduced eliminated from the state by exotic crayfish (Loughman and crayfishes; however, the successful development of such meth- Welsh 2010; Swecker et al. 2010). In Maryland, O. limosus is ods will not eliminate the need for policies aimed at preventing listed as demonstrably secure, but the species is threatened by introductions, which should remain the first line of defense. exotic crayfish, and significant range reductions have occurred Although most specific examples are from Pennsylvania, the in recent years (Kilian et al. 2010). Additional surveys along general concepts and management strategies that are provid- with genetic work are needed to update the status of O. limosus ed have broad applicability and would likely benefit many of in other regions and across its range. Overall, this assessment North America’s crayfishes, as well as other aquatic inverte- suggests that management intervention is likely needed to en- brate species of concern. sure the continued existence of O. limosus in Pennsylvania and possibly elsewhere in its native range and illustrates the impor- Crayfish Ban tance of periodically reevaluating the status of native crayfishes Because introduced crayfishes occur in a number of water (even widespread ones). bodies in Pennsylvania (Bouchard et al. 2007; Lieb et al. 2007a, 2011) and are available from bait shops, biological warehouses, Cambarus b. bartonii pet stores, live food vendors, and aquaculture facilities, which Although the range of C. b. bartonii has remained rela- are, at best, loosely regulated, it would be difficult to prevent tively stable over the past century in Pennsylvania and Mary- additional introductions in Pennsylvania without further regu- land (Figure 5; Bouchard et al. 2007; Kilian et al. 2010; Lieb lations and their enforcement (see Lodge et al. 2000a, 2000b; et al. 2011), the species has been replaced by introduced cray- Burkholder and Wallace 2001; and DiStefano et al. 2009). Al- fishes at some locations in those states and New York (Table 2; though O. rusticus has been tightly regulated since 2005 and Schwartz et al. 1963; Daniels 1998; Kuhlmann and Hazelton cannot be possessed, sold, transported, or cultured within the 2007). Additionally, C. b. bartonii may be negatively affected state (58 Pa Code § 71.6.d 2008; Pennsylvania Fish and Boat by nonnative O. virilis in eastern West Virginia (Swecker et Commission [PFBC] 2009), other introduced crayfishes (P. al. 2010) and is in serious decline in parts of Ontario, Canada, acutus, C. robustus, O. obscurus, O. virilis) are unregulated and although introduced crayfishes are not the cause (Edwards et can be purchased from commercial dealers or collected from al. 2009). invaded water bodies and released legally into the state’s wa- ters. Additionally, although P. clarkii cannot be propagated in Given this information and the continued expansion of flow-through systems or introduced into Pennsylvania waters introduced crayfishes in eastern North America, additional (PFBC 2009), the species is cultured in parts of Pennsylva- losses appear likely. Fortunately, because C. b. bartonii is widely nia and can be possessed, sold, and transported legally within distributed in eastern North America from Canada southward the state. This situation is not unusual because many places to Georgia and is still common in many areas (Hobbs 1989; in North America do not strictly regulate all of their intro- Bouchard et al. 2007; Kilian et al. 2010; Loughman and Welsh duced or potentially introduced crayfish species (DiStefano et 2010; Simmons and Fraley 2010), these losses do not pose an al. 2009; Peters and Lodge 2009).

498 Fisheries • vol 36 no 10 • october 2011 • www.fisheries.org Strict regulations that only apply to a few species will not culturing crayfish it would be impossible to determine whether prevent crayfish introductions in most areas. Extending exist- a violation had occurred. In contrast, a complete or partial ing bans to other species would be hard to enforce because ban would be much easier to enforce because anglers would ei- most natural resource managers and conservation officers have ther not be allowed to use crayfish as bait anywhere (complete difficulty identifying crayfish (Lodge et al. 2000b; Peters and ban) or would only be permitted to use them in certain waters Lodge 2009). For this reason, banning the possession, sale, (partial ban). Under a complete or partial ban, the job of law transportation, and culture of all native and nonnative cray- enforcement would be to prevent anglers from using crayfish fishes in Pennsylvania and elsewhere (a complete ban) is war- as bait in restricted waters, which is much easier than trying ranted. Such a ban would make it illegal to use live crayfish as to determine whether crayfish are being transported between bait as recommended by Lodge et al. (2000b) and DiStefano sites. et al. (2009) and as is already the case in Wisconsin, Virginia, and parts of Maryland and Canada (Taylor et al. 2007; DiSte- Education and Outreach fano et al. 2009; Maryland Department of Natural Resources Although education and outreach programs targeting [MDDNR] 2009). The Wisconsin ban, enacted in 1983, re- policy makers and the general public are vitally important in ceived nearly universal approval from the public (comments preventing crayfish introductions (Lodge et al. 2000b; Hamr 5:1 in favor of it), “caused no unusual controversy, and has not 2002; Taylor 2002), until recently there was little up-to-date caused any apparent harm to Wisconsin’s important fishing in- information to dispense in many areas, including Pennsylva- dustry” (Lodge et al. 2000b:23). Due to our outreach efforts, nia. Nonetheless, when this information became available in including at least 13 articles in the popular media (newspapers, Pennsylvania, the state’s regulatory agencies moved quickly, magazines, Internet) since 2004, and those of the Pennsylvania enacting a ban on O. rusticus in 2005, within approximately Sea Grant, residents of Pennsylvania are becoming increas- a year of being informed of the extent of the infestation. The ingly aware of the threat that introduced crayfishes pose and general public has proven equally as responsive, providing cray- would likely support a crayfish ban. Outreach efforts are also fish specimens, helping to detect new invasions (also noted by underway elsewhere (DiStefano et al. 2009; Kilian et al. 2010), Lodge et al. 2006), and urging the passage of additional regula- increasing the likelihood that a complete ban would be sup- tory measures to prevent introductions. ported by the public. To date, most outreach efforts in Pennsylvania have been Ideally, the complete ban would apply to all water bodies; restricted to articles in the popular media, invasive species however, it may be possible to permit the use of crayfish as bait workshops, and presentations at scientific and management in selected locations that are already infested with introduced meetings. Although productive, the effectiveness of those ef- crayfish (a partial ban). Such a measure would maintain a ban forts could be increased by targeting vulnerable areas (water- on the sale, transportation, and culture of crayfish but allow an- sheds that support imperiled species and/or are at risk of in- glers to collect and fish with crayfish at some infested locations vasion) and potential sources of exotics including bait shops, (exempt sites). Because some noncompliance may occur (DiS- biological warehouses, pet stores, live food vendors, and aqua- tefano et al. 2009), exempt sites should not be in the vicinity culture facilities (see Burkholder and Wallace 2001; Puth and of imperiled crayfish. For example, substantial reaches of the Allen 2004; Keller et al. 2008; DiStefano et al. 2009). Town Schuylkill River in Pennsylvania are completely dominated by hall style gatherings in vulnerable areas and attempts to edu- introduced O. rusticus (Lieb et al. 2011) and would, in theory, cate anglers and others who contact crayfish would likely ex- qualify for exempt status. However, because those reaches are tend current efforts to a different subset of the public. in the vicinity one of Pennsylvania’s rarest crayfish (C. (P.) sp.; Lieb et al. 2011), they should not be exempt. Locations The placement of warning signs along water bodies that that have never been surveyed for crayfishes or have not been support imperiled crayfish such as C. (P.) sp. and O. limosus (to surveyed recently should also not be exempt. Although not risk prevent introductions) and along heavily infested waterways free, a partial ban would provide recreational opportunities for (to prevent the transfer of exotics elsewhere) would probably anglers that use crayfish as bait while still reducing the chance slow the spread of exotics, particularly in heavily fished areas. of introductions. To decrease costs, signs could be strategically placed at boat launches and other popular access points. Some will likely argue that anglers should be allowed to collect and fish with crayfish wherever they choose (not just Role of Dams, Temperature, and Nutrients at exempt sites), as long as crayfish are not moved from place Although the susceptibility of individual sites to crayfish to place. However, such a measure—which makes sense in invasions is potentially influenced by a number of factors (Ker- theory and would allow crayfish to be possessed but not sold, shner and Lodge 1995; Light 2003; Usio et al. 2006; Phillips transported, or cultured—would be difficult to enforce. This is et al. 2009; Capinha and Anastacio 2011), in this section, we because unless an individual is caught transporting, selling, or focus on dams, temperature, and nutrients because they appear

Fisheries • vol 36 no 10 • october 2011 • www.fisheries.org 499 to be important for one of Pennsylvania’s rarest crayfish (C. that remain above 20°C throughout the summer than in cooler (P.) sp.; Lieb and Bhattarai 2009; Lieb et al. 2011) and have headwater areas (Jezerinac 1986; Mundahl and Benton 1990; the potential to influence invasions in many areas. Thoma and Jezerinac 2000), appear to support their prediction. Because temperatures at C. (P. ) sp. sites are known or suspect- The ecological benefits of dam removal have been thor- ed to be lower than 20°C for substantial parts of the summer oughly discussed in the scientific literature and are a major rea- (Steffy and Kilham 2006; Lieb and Bhattarai 2009), it is pos- son for the recent surge in removal projects; however, the nega- sible that O. rusticus has been slow to invade those sites, at tive effects of such removals have received much less attention least partly, because relatively low temperatures afford resident and are typically limited to the downstream transport of sedi- species a bioenergetic advantage over O. rusticus (see Momot ments, nutrients, and toxic materials and the upstream move- et al. 1988 for a similar example). ment of introduced fish (Bednarek 2001; Bushaw-Newton et al. 2002; Hart et al. 2002; Poff and Hart 2002; Stanley and The recent discovery of O. rusticus at the Valley Creek C. Doyle 2003). Because dams can block the dispersal of crayfish (P.) sp. sites suggests that, although not favored by O. rusti- (Meyer et al. 2007), their removal may facilitate crayfish inva- cus, low temperatures may not prevent invasions indefinitely. sions in some systems, with the potential for negative effects on The spread of O. rusticus into the northern United States and native communities. Despite this possibility, the potential for Canada (Hamr 2002; Taylor et al. 2007; Phillips et al. 2009) such effects is rarely discussed in the scientific literature (but further indicates that low temperatures alone may not provide see Kerby et al. 2005; Bubb et al. 2008), or empirically tested, a permanent barrier against invasion. It is also possible that, and is typically not considered by regulatory agencies charged in Valley Creek, recent temperature increases resulting from with managing dam removals. urbanization (Steffy and Kilham 2006) have tipped the bio- energetic balance in favor of O. rusticus. Mundahl and Ben- ton (1990) and Whitledge and Rabeni (2002) voiced similar These data suggest that barriers (dams, low tempera- concerns regarding the potential influence of habitat- and cli- tures, low nutrients) are likely preventing or slowing ex- mate-driven changes in temperature on O. rusticus invasions in otic crayfish from invading some sites in Pennsylvania Ohio and Missouri. Additional temperature increases in Valley that support imperiled crayfish. Creek and the other C. (P.) sp. sites are likely due to continued urbanization (Steffy and Kilham 2006; Kaushal et al. 2010), Continuing to ignore the potential influence of dams on increasing regional groundwater temperatures (Eggleston et al. crayfish invasions could have serious consequences, particular- 1999), and climate change (see Mohseni et al. 1999; Chang ly for imperiled crayfishes. For example, in Pennsylvania, dams 2003; Kaushal et al. 2010). Such increases may eventually re- are located downstream of most of the known populations of sult in thermal conditions in many areas, including the C. (P. ) an extremely rare crayfish (C. (P.) sp.) and may be protect- sp. sites, which favor O. rusticus. ing them from invasion (especially by O. rusticus; Lieb et al. 2011). At a minimum, surveys should be conducted prior to The relatively low nutrient status of the C. (P.) sp. sites dam removal to ensure that removal will not facilitate the up- (oligo-mesotrophic; Lieb and Bhattarai 2009) is probably not stream migration of introduced crayfish. Ironically, dams that optimal for O. rusticus, which—due to its high metabolic rate, are protecting upstream areas from invasion may need to be left high growth rate, and large size—tend to do best in productive in place for conservation reasons. In areas prone to invasion, systems where nutrients are plentiful (Momot 1984; Momot et dams located downstream of imperiled crayfish should probably al. 1988). However, continued urbanization of the Philadel- not be removed, regardless of whether exotics are present in phia suburbs will likely increase nutrient levels at the C. (P.) the system or not. sp. sites in the future (see Lenat and Crawford 1994; Carpenter et al. 1998). Additionally, it has been predicted that, as atmo-

Low temperatures may also play a role in protecting some spheric CO2 levels rise, SE Pennsylvania will become warmer uninvaded sites. For example, in Pennsylvania, water tempera- and wetter, further increasing nutrient loading from urbanizing tures at sites with populations of C. (P. ) sp. (hereafter termed basins in the region (Chang 2004). Elevated nutrient levels C. (P.) sp. sites) are likely lower than that preferred by O. rus- may increase the likelihood of future O. rusticus invasions at ticus, possibly delaying or preventing its establishment at those the C. (P.) sp. sites and other locations that are not highly en- sites (Lieb and Bhattarai 2009). Support for this possibility is riched, as appears to have already occurred in Ohio and West provided by Mundahl and Benton (1990), who determined Virginia (Jezerinac et al. 1995; Thoma and Jezerinac 2000). that O. rusticus growth was maximized at 26–28°C in labora- tory experiments and predicted that the species would be most These data suggest that barriers (dams, low temperatures, successful in systems with average summer water temperatures low nutrients) are likely preventing or slowing exotic crayfish near that range. Stream surveys in Ohio, which indicated that from invading some sites in Pennsylvania that support imper- O. rusticus was more successful in warmer, downstream reaches iled crayfish. Unfortunately, dam removals and expected in-

500 Fisheries • vol 36 no 10 • october 2011 • www.fisheries.org Photo Spread 4. Cambarus robustus (upper left), Orconectes obscurus (upper right), Orconectes rusticus (middle left), Orconectes virilis (middle right), and Procambarus clarkii (lower right) have been introduced to eastern Pennsylvania, and Procambarus acutus (lower left) has greatly ex- panded its range in the region as a result of human activities. Photos by C. Swecker and T. Jones (lower left, lower right), J. Fetzner (upper left, upper right), M. Sell (middle left), and K. Crandall (middle right). creases in water temperature and nutrient levels resulting from may depend on management efforts that maintain, strengthen, climate change and urbanization may compromise or weaken or expand existing barriers. those barriers in the future. More generally, these findings high- light the potentially important but often overlooked role that Eliminating Exotics physical and chemical barriers of natural and anthropogenic Although the negative effects of introduced crayfish are origin play in preventing crayfish invasions. Ultimately, the well documented, little is known about how to eliminate them preservation of native crayfish in some heavily infested areas from invaded waters. Chemical poisons are available; however,

Fisheries • vol 36 no 10 • october 2011 • www.fisheries.org 501 native crayfish are also killed (Gunderson 2008). Intensive Creek would be an obvious candidate for treatment. Eradica- harvesting may reduce population sizes but is laborious and un- tion/control programs could be combined with restocking ef- likely to result in eradication (Hamr 1999; Holdich et al. 1999; forts to restore native crayfishes to systems where they have Freeman et al. 2010). In a Wisconsin lake, O. rusticus densi- been extirpated. ties were dramatically reduced (although extirpation was not achieved) using a combination of trapping and increased fish Reducing Environmental Degradation predation (Hein et al. 2007). Unfortunately, the effort required Anthropogenic disturbances and associated declines in was substantial, and similar results in open systems (streams) habitat and water quality are a serious threat to North Ameri- are not assured. Pheromone baits could potentially reduce this ca’s native crayfishes (Wilcove et al. 1998; Guiaşu 2002; Tay- effort by increasing trap efficiency (Holdich et al. 1999; Free- lor et al. 2007). Many of these disturbances can be related man et al. 2010) but are still in the early stages of development directly or indirectly to landscape-scale changes associated (Stebbing et al. 2003; Aquiloni and Gherardi 2010). These dif- with agricultural and urban development. As a result, the pres- ficulties have led many authors (e.g., Lodge et al. 2000b; Hamr ervation of native crayfish should include efforts to preserve 2002; Gunderson 2008) to conclude that introduced crayfish natural areas, particularly in the riparian zone (Burskey and can best be controlled by preventing future introductions. Simon 2010), and mitigate existing impacts. Riparian forests may be of particular value because they reduce pollutant, sedi- Although we agree with this reasoning, additional intro- ment, and nutrient loading (Lowrance et al. 1984; Peterjohn ductions are likely unavoidable. As a result, the persistence of and Correll 1984; Pinho et al. 2008); lower water tempera- certain native crayfishes (particularly those with limited ranges ture (Burton and Likens 1973; Barton et al. 1985; Storey and such as C. (P.) sp.) may require the removal of exotics. Unfor- Cowley 1997); and provide refugia from flooding (in the form tunately, species-specific treatments that eliminate introduced of tree roots and woody debris; Smith et al. 1996; Parkyn and crayfish with minimal effects on non-target species are current- Collier 2004), which would benefit crayfish communities di- ly not available (Lodge et al. 2000b; Gunderson 2008; Freeman rectly via improved habitat and water quality and indirectly by et al. 2010). Their development should be possible; however, reducing the likelihood of crayfish invasions (see Role of Dams, because crayfish species vary in their responses to a variety of Temperature, and Nutrients). In Pennsylvania, such benefits substances (Hobbs and Hall 1974; Berrill et al. 1985; Eversole are particularly likely for C. (P.) sp. because it is typically found and Seller 1996; Nyström 2002; Wigginton and Birge 2007). in streams with relatively low temperatures and nutrients and Additionally, because molting crayfish are especially sensitive appears to be negatively affected by sedimentation and in- to toxicants (Wigginton and Birge 2007), it may be possible troduced crayfish (Lieb et al. 2008, 2011; Lieb and Bhattarai in some situations to apply treatments when exotics are at the 2009). Nonetheless, because the benefits of riparian forests are peak of their molting cycle but natives are not to minimize not always apparent (particularly in highly developed areas; effects on non-target species. The release of sterilized males, Roy et al. 2005, 2006, 2007), their presence alone will not nec- which has long been used to control insect pests (Myers et al. essarily assure the long-term survival of native crayfish. 2000) but has only recently been considered for crayfish (Hol- dich et al. 1999; Aquiloni et al. 2009); endocrine disruptors, In Pennsylvania, exceptional value (EV) status affords which interfere with molting and reproductive processes in surface waters protection under state law and mandates that (Rodriguez et al. 2007; Mazurova et al. 2008); and “water quality be maintained and protected” (25 Pa Code § species-specific pathogens (Holdich et al. 1999; Davidson et al. 93.4a 2007). Surface waters qualify for EV status if they are 2010; Freeman et al. 2010) might also be effective for crayfish. of “exceptional ecological significance,” defined as “important, unique, or sensitive ecologically” (25 Pa Code § 93.1 2007). The objective of most treatment programs would be eradi- Although surface waters that support imperiled crayfish such as cation, although for some abundant, highly fecund invaders C. (P.) sp. and O. limosus appear to meet those criteria, most such as O. rusticus, population control may be more feasible are not classified as EV and need to be reevaluated (especially (Myers et al. 2000). Because introduced species are difficult those with C.(P.) sp.). More generally, whenever possible, im- to eradicate if well established (Myers et al. 2000; Lodge et periled crayfish should be considered when surface waters are al. 2006), watersheds that support imperiled crayfish should classified and anti-degradation priorities are assigned. be routinely monitored (at least once per year) to ensure that invasions are detected quickly (see similar, albeit less specific, Because urban areas support imperiled crayfish and are recommendations in Lodge et al. 2006). Given that eradica- crisscrossed by pipelines, railroads, and roadways that serve tion/control programs require public support and can be con- as conduits for wastes and toxic materials, efforts to prevent troversial, particularly if chemicals are used in populated areas, spilled materials from reaching imperiled crayfish are needed. such efforts should include outreach and public education ini- Those efforts should include the diversion of road runoff away tiatives (Myers et al. 2000; Genovesi 2005). Due to the pres- from populations of imperiled crayfish and the frequent inspec- ence of C. (P.) sp. and recent invasion by O. rusticus, Valley tion and maintenance of pipelines, railroads, and roadways

502 Fisheries • vol 36 no 10 • october 2011 • www.fisheries.org that are in the vicinity of those populations. In Pennsylvania, Barton, D. R., W. D. Taylor, and R. M. Biette. 1985. Dimensions of ri- such safeguards are especially pertinent to C. (P.) sp. because parian buffer strips required to maintain trout habitat in southern underground sewage conduits occur upstream of many C. (P.) Ontario Canada streams. North American Journal of Fisheries sp. sites (Ryan and Packman 2006). Further, some of the largest Management 5:364–378. and busiest highways and railroads in Pennsylvania are in the Bednarek, A. T. 2001. Undamming rivers: a review of the ecological impacts of dam removal. Environmental Management 27:803– vicinity of those sites and are a major supply route for chemi- 814. cals, fuels, and other toxic materials coming in and out of the Berrill, M., L. Hollett, A. Margosian, and J. Hudson. 1985. Variation Philadelphia area. Therefore, spills in this region could have in tolerance to low environmental pH by the crayfish Orconectes serious consequences for C. (P.) sp. In recent years, at least two rusticus, Orconectes propinquus, and Cambarus robustus. Canadian substantial releases of diesel fuel from tanker trucks involved Journal of Zoology 63:2586–2589. in highway accidents have occurred downstream of C. (P.) sp. Bouchard, R. W. 1976a. Crayfishes and shrimps. Pages 13–20 in H. sites (National Response Center 2002; Schaefer and Mastrull Boschung, editor. Endangered and threatened plants and 2007). Given the continued expansion of urban areas in SE of . Bulletin of the Alabama Museum of Natural History Pennsylvania, future spills, including those upstream of C. (P.) 2. University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. ———. 1976b. Geography and ecology of crayfishes of the Cumber- sp. sites, seem likely. land Plateau and Cumberland Mountains, Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee, Georgia and Alabama, part II: the genera Fallicam- Additional Sampling barus and Cambarus. Pages 585–605 in J.W. Avault, Jr., editor. Because O. limosus and C. (P. ) sp. are imperiled in Penn- Freshwater crayfish. State University Division of Con- sylvania and elsewhere, efforts to better define their ranges and tinuing Education, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. monitor populations are needed. Range refinement will require Bouchard, R. W., D. A. Lieb, R. F. Carline, T. R. Nuttall, C. B. crayfish collections from watersheds that have not been sam- Wengert, and J. R. Wallace. 2007. 101 Years of change (1906 to pled recently and more sampling of drainages that currently 2007). The distribution of the crayfishes of Pennsylvania. Part I. support C. (P.) sp. and O. limosus. Once their distributions Eastern Pennsylvania. Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadel- phia, Report No. 07-11, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. have been refined, range-wide monitoring programs can be de- Bubb, D. H., T. J. Thom, and M. C. Lucas. 2008. Spatial ecology of veloped. Efforts to quickly detect crayfish invasions and relate the white-clawed crayfish in an upland stream and implications population sizes to conditions at the reach scale (e.g., in stream for the conservation of this endangered species. Aquatic Conser- habitat) and basin scale (e.g., land use) should be included in vation-Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 18:647–657. those programs. Regular monitoring should allow population Buhay, J. E., and K. A. Crandall. 2005. Subterranean phylogeography declines to be detected and causative factors identified, ulti- of freshwater crayfishes shows extensive gene flow and surpris- mately providing the information needed to protect C. (P.) ingly large population sizes. Molecular Ecology 14:4259–4273. sp. and O. limosus across their ranges. Initiatives of this type Burkholder, C. L., and J. R. Wallace. 2001. Crayfish survey of Lancast- should have widespread applicability, assisting efforts to con- er County: invasion of the . Abstract. North Ameri- can Benthological Society Conference, La Crosse, Wisconsin. serve crayfish in a variety of settings. Burskey, J. L., and T. P. Simon. 2010. Reach- and watershed-scale asso- ciations of crayfish within an area of varying agricultural impact Acknowledgments in west-central Indiana. Southeastern Naturalist 9:199–216. We thank Nellie Bhattarai, Hannah M. Ingram, and Jeremy Burton, T. M., and G. E. Likens. 1973. Effect of strip-cutting on Harper for their substantial contributions. The Wild Resources stream temperatures in Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest, Conservation Fund, Pennsylvania Department of Conservation New Hampshire. Bioscience 23:433–435. and Natural Resources (Project Number AG050523); the Na- Bushaw-Newton, K. L., D. D. Hart, J. E. Pizzuto, J. R. Thomson, J. tional Park Service (Grant Agreement H4560030064); and a Egan, J. T. Ashley, T. E. Johnson, R. J. Horwitz, M. Keeley, J. Pennsylvania State Wildlife Grant (number PFBC050305.01) Lawrence, D. Charles, C. Gatenby, D. A. Kreeger, T. Nighten- gale, R. L. Thomas, and D. J. Velinsky. 2002. An integrative provided financial support. Christopher A. Urban, Matt R. approach towards understanding ecological responses to dam Marshall, and Sarah Nichols administered grants and provided removal: the Manatawny Creek study. Journal of the American encouragement. Emily and Megan Lieb assisted in the field at Water Resources Association 38:1581–1599. some sites. Patrick Martinez, an anonymous reviewer, and Ma- Capinha, C., and P. Anastacio. 2011. Assessing the environmental rybeth Lieb provided helpful critiques of the article. requirements of invaders using ensembles of distribution models. Diversity and Distributions 17:13–24. References Carpenter, S. R., N. F. Caraco, D. L. Correll, R. W. Howarth, A. N. Aquiloni, L., A. Becciolini, R. Berti, S. Porciani, C. Trunfio, and F. Sharpley, and V. H. Smith. 1998. Nonpoint pollution of surface Gherardi. 2009. Managing invasive crayfish: use of X-ray sterili- waters with phosphorus and nitrogen. Ecological Applications sation of males. Freshwater Biology 54:1510–1519. 8:559–568. Aquiloni, L., and F. Gherardi. 2010. The use of sex pheromones for Chang, H. 2003. Basin hydrologic response to changes in climate and the control of invasive populations of the crayfish Procambarus land use: the Conestoga River Basin, Pennsylvania. Physical Ge- clarkii: a field study. Hydrobiologia 649:249–254. ography 24:222–247.

Fisheries • vol 36 no 10 • october 2011 • www.fisheries.org 503 ———. 2004. Water quality impacts of climate and land use chang- nal of the North American Benthological Society 30: 871–881. es in southeastern Pennsylvania. The Professional Geographer Francois, D. D. 1959. The crayfishes of New Jersey. Ohio Journal of 56:240–257. Science 59:108–127. Cooper, J. E. 2001. Cambarus hobbsorum (Puncticambarus), a new cray- Freeman, M. A., J. F. Turnbull, W. E. Yeomans, and C. W. Bean. 2010. fish (: ) from North Carolina. Proceedings Prospects for management strategies of invasive crayfish popula- of the Biological Society of Washington 114:152–161. tions with an emphasis on biological control. Aquatic Conserva- ———. 2006. A new species of crayfish of the genus Cambarus Erich- tion-Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 20:211–223. son, 1846 (Decapoda: Cambaridae) from the eastern Blue Ridge Genovesi, P. 2005. Eradications of invasive alien species in Europe: a foothills and western Piedmont Plateau of North Carolina. Pro- review. Biological Invasions 7:127–133. ceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 119:67–80. Guiaşu, R. C. 2002. Cambarus. Pages 609-634 in D. M. Holdich, edi- Cooper, J. E., and D. G. Cooper. 2003. A new crayfish of the genus tor. Biology of Freshwater Crayfish. Blackwell Science, Oxford, Cambarus Erichson, 1846 (Decapoda: Cambaridae), from the U.K. Cape Fear River basin in the Sandhills of North Carolina. Pro- Gunderson, J. 2008. Rusty Crayfish: Nasty Invader. Publication No. ceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 116:920–932. X34 of the Minnesota Sea Grant. University of Minnesota, Du- Crocker, D. W. 1957. The crayfishes of New York state (Decapoda, luth, Minnesota. Astacidae). New York State Museum and Science Service Bul- Hamr, P. 1998. Conservation Status of Canadian Freshwater Cray- letin No. 355. State University of New York, Albany, New York. fishes. World Wildlife Fund Canada and the Canadian Nature ———. 1979. The crayfishes of New England. Proceedings of the Bio- Federation, Toronto, Canada. logical Society of Washington 92:225–253. ———. 1999. The commercial harvest of the exotic rusty crayfish Daniels, R. A. 1998. Changes in the distribution of stream-dwelling (Orconectes rusticus) summer 1998. Report to the Ministry of crayfishes in the Schoharie Creek system, eastern New York Natural Resources, Peterborough Region, Ontario, Canada. State. Northeastern Naturalist 5:231–248. ———. 2002. Orconectes. Pages 585–608 in D.M. Holdich, editor. Davidson, E. W., J. Snyder, D. Lightner, G. Ruthig, J. Lucas, and J. Biology of Freshwater Crayfish. Blackwell Science, Oxford, U.K. Gilley. 2010. Exploration of potential microbial control agents Harris, S. C. 1990. Preliminary considerations on rare and endangered for the invasive crayfish, Orconectes virilis. Biocontrol Science invertebrates in Alabama. Journal of the Alabama Academy of and Technology 20:297–310. Science 61:64–92. DiStefano, R. J., M. E. Litvan, and P. T. Horner. 2009. The bait indus- Hart, D. D., T. E. Johnson, K. L. Bushaw-Newton, R. J. Horwitz, A. try as a potential vector for alien crayfish introductions: problem T. Bednarek, D. F. Charles, D. A. Kreeger, and D. J. Velinsky. recognition by fisheries agencies and a Missouri evaluation. Fish- 2002. Dam removal: challenges and opportunities for ecological eries 34:586–597. research and river restoration. Bioscience 52:669–681. Edwards, B. A., D. A. Jackson, and K. M. Somers. 2009. Multispecies Hein, C. L., M. J. Vander Zanden, and J. J. Magnuson. 2007. Intensive crayfish declines in lakes: implications for species distributions trapping and increased fish predation cause massive population and richness. Journal of the North American Benthological So- decline of an invasive crayfish. Freshwater Biology 52:1134– ciety 28:719–732. 1146. Eggleston, J. R., T. M. Kehn, and G. H. Wood, Jr. 1999. Anthracite. Hobbs, H. H., Jr. 1969. On the distribution and phylogeny of the Pages 458–469 in G.H. Shultz, editor. The Geology of Pennsylva- crayfish genus Cambarus. Pages 93-178 in P. C. Holt, R. L. Hoff- nia. Pennsylvania Geological Survey and Pittsburgh Geological man, and C. W. Hart, editors. The Distributional History of the Society, Special Publication 1, Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, Penn- Biota of the Southern Appalachians, Part I: Invertebrates, Re- sylvania. search Division Monograph 1. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and Ehrlich, P. R., and G. C. Daily. 1993. Population extinction and sav- State University, Blacksburg, Virginia. ing biodiversity. Ambio 22:64–68. ———. 1989. An illustrated checklist of the American crayfishes Elmore, A. J., and S. S. Kaushal. 2008. Disappearing headwaters: pat- (Decapoda: Astacidae, Cambaridae, and Parastacidae). Smith- terns of stream burial due to urbanization. Frontiers in Ecology sonian Contributions to Zoology No. 480. National Museum of and the Environment 6:308–312. Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Eversole, A. G., and B. C. Seller. 1996. Comparison of relative cray- Hobbs, H. H., Jr., and E. T. Hall. 1974. Crayfishes (Decapoda: Asta- fish toxicity values. Freshwater Crayfish 11:274–285. cidae). Pages 195–214 in C. W. Hart and L. H. Fuller, editors. Eversole, A. G., and S. M. Welch. 2010. Conservation of imperiled Pollution Ecology of Freshwater Invertebrates. Academic Press, crayfish—Distocambarus (Fitzcambarus) youngineri Hobbs and New York, New York. Carlson 1985 (Decapoda: Cambaridae). Journal of Hobbs, H. H., III, J. P. Jass, and J. V. Huner. 1989. A review of Biology 30:151–155. global crayfish introductions with particular emphasis on two Felbaum, F., B. Mitchell, K. McKenna, J. Hassinger, A. Shiels, J. Hart, North American species (Decapoda, Cambaridae). Crustaceana and D. Brauning. 1995. Endangered and Threatened Species of 56:299–316. Pennsylvania. Wild Resources Conservation Fund, Harrisburg, Holdich, D. M., R. Gydemo, and W. D. Rogers. 1999. A review of pos- Pennsylvania. sible methods for controlling nuisance populations of alien cray- Fetzner, J. W., Jr., and K. A. Crandall. 2002. Genetic variation. Pages fish. Pages 245–270 in F. Gherardi and D. M. Holdich, editors. 291–326 in D.M. Holdich, editor. Biology of Freshwater Crayfish, Crustacean Issues, volume 11, Crayfish in Europe as Alien Spe- Blackwell Science, Oxford, U.K. cies: How to Make the Best of a Bad Situation? A.A. Balkema, Filipová, L., D. A. Lieb, F. Grandjean, and A. Petrusek. 2011. Haplo- Rotterdam, The Netherlands. type variation in the spiny-cheek crayfish Orconectes limosus: col- Hunter, M. L., and A. Hutchinson. 1994. The virtues and shortcom- onization of Europe and genetic diversity of native stocks. Jour- ings of parochialism—conserving species that are locally rare,

504 Fisheries • vol 36 no 10 • october 2011 • www.fisheries.org but globally common. Conservation Biology 8:1163–1165. Lieb, D. A., R. F. Carline, and V. M. Mengel. 2007b. Crayfish Survey Jelks, H. L., S. J. Walsh, N. M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. and Discovery of a Member of the Cambarus acuminatus Com- Díaz-Pardo, D. A. Hendrickson, J. Lyons, N. E. Mandrak, F. Mc- plex (Decapoda: Cambaridae) at Valley Forge National Histori- Cormick, J. S. Nelson, S. P. Platania, B. A. Porter, C. B. Renaud, cal Park in Southeastern Pennsylvania. Technical Report NPS/ J. J. Schmitter-Soto, E. B. Taylor, and M. L. Warren, Jr. 2008. NER/NRTR—2007/084. National Park Service, Philadelphia, Conservation status of imperiled North American freshwater Pennsylvania. and diadromous fishes. Fisheries 33:372–407. Lieb, D. A., R. F. Carline, J. L. Rosenberger, and V. M. Mengel. 2008. Jezerinac, R. F. 1986. Endangered and threatened crayfishes (Decapo- The discovery and ecology of a member of the Cambarus acumi- da, Cambaridae) of Ohio. Ohio Journal of Science 86:177–180. natus complex (Decapoda: Cambaridae) in Valley Creek, south- Jezerinac, R. F., G. W. Stocker, and D. C. Tarter. 1995. The crayfishes eastern Pennsylvania. Journal of Crustacean Biology 28:439–450. (Decapoda: Cambaridae) of West Virginia. Ohio Biological Sur- Light, T. 2003. Success and failure in a lotic crayfish invasion: the vey Bulletin New Series 10:1–193. roles of hydrologic variability and habitat alteration. Freshwater Kaushal, S. S., G. E. Likens, N. A. Jaworski, M. L. Pace, A. M. Sides, Biology 48:1886–1897. D. Seekell, K. T. Belt, D. H. Secor, and R. L. Wingate. 2010. Ris- Lodge, D. M., C. A. Taylor, D. M. Holdich, and J. Skurdal. 2000a. ing stream and river temperatures in the United States. Frontiers Nonindigenous crayfishes threaten North American freshwater in Ecology and the Environment 8:461–466. biodiversity: lessons from Europe. Fisheries 25:7–20. Keller, R. P., K. Frang, and D. M. Lodge. 2008. Preventing the spread ———. 2000b. Reducing impacts of exotic crayfish introductions: of invasive species: economic benefits of intervention guided by new policies needed. Fisheries 25:21–23. ecological predictions. Conservation Biology 22:80–88. Lodge, D. M., S. Williams, H. J. MacIsaac, K. R. Hayes, B. Leung, S. Kerby, J. L., S. P. D. Riley, L. B. Kats, and P. Wilson. 2005. Barriers Reichard, R. N. Mack, P. B. Moyle, M. Smith, D. A. Andow, J. T. and flow as limiting factors in the spread of an invasive crayfish Carlton, and A. McMichael. 2006. Biological invasions: recom- (Procambarus clarkii) in southern California streams. Biological mendations for U.S. policy and management. Ecological Appli- Conservation 126:402–409. cations 16:2035–2054. Kershner, M. W., and D. M. Lodge. 1995. Effects of littoral habitat and Loughman, Z. J., T. P. Simon, and S. A. Welsh. 2009. West Virginia fish predation on the distribution of an exotic crayfish, Orconectes crayfishes (Decapoda: Cambaridae): observations on distribu- rusticus. Journal of the North American Benthological Society tion, natural history, and conservation. Northeastern Naturalist 14:414–422. 16:225–238. Kilian, J. V., A. J. Becker, S. A. Stranko, M. Ashton, R. J. Klauda, J. Loughman, Z. J., and S. A. Welsh. 2010. Distribution and conserva- Gerber, and M. Hurd. 2010. The status and distribution of Mary- tion standing of West Virginia crayfishes. Southeastern Natural- land crayfishes. Southeastern Naturalist 9:11–32. ist 9:63–78. King, R. S., M. E. Baker, D. F. Whigham, D. E. Weller, T. E. Jordan, Lowrance, R., R. Todd, J. Fail, O. Hendrickson, R. Leonard, and L. P. F. Kazyak, and M. K. Hurd. 2005. Spatial considerations for Asmussen. 1984. Riparian forests as nutrient filters in agricultural linking watershed land cover to ecological indicators in streams. watersheds. Bioscience 34:374–377. Ecological Applications 15:137–153. Luck, G. W., G. C. Daily, and P. R. Ehrlich. 2003. Population diversity Kuhlmann, M. L., and P. D. Hazelton. 2007. Invasion of the upper and ecosystem services. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 18:331– Susquehanna River watershed by rusty crayfish (Orconectes rusti- 336. cus). Northeastern Naturalist 14:507–518. Master, L. L., S. R. Flack, and B. A. Stein. 1998. Rivers of Life: Criti- Lambert, S. D., D. F. McAlpine, and A. Hebda. 2007. First establish- cal Watersheds for Protecting Freshwater Biodiversity. The Na- ment of an invasive crayfish, Orconectes limosus (Rafinesque, ture Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia. 1817) (Decapoda, Cambaridae) in Nova Scotia, Canada. Crus- Master, L. L., B. A. Stein, L. S. Kutner, and G. A. Hammerson. 2000. taceana 80:1265–1270. Vanishing assets: conservation status of U.S. species. Pages 93– Lenat, D. R., and J. K. Crawford. 1994. Effects of land use on water 118 in B. A. Stein, L. S. Kutner, and J. S. Adams, editors. Pre- quality and aquatic biota of 3 North Carolina Piedmont streams. cious Heritage: the Status of Biodiversity in the United States. Hydrobiologia 294:185–199. Oxford University Press, New York, New York. Lesica, P., and F. W. Allendorf. 1995. When are peripheral-populations Mazurova, E., K. Hilscherova, R. Triebskorn, H. R. Kohler, B. Mar- valuable for conservation? Conservation Biology 9:753–760. salek, and L. Blaha. 2008. Endocrine regulation of the reproduc- Lieb, D. A., and N. Bhattarai. 2009. The distribution, ecology, con- tion in crustaceans: identification of potential targets for toxi- servation status, and management needs of a newly discovered cants and environmental contaminants. Biologia 63:139–150. species of Pennsylvania crayfish. Final Report, Wild Resources McAlpine, D. F., W. E. Hogans, and T. J. Fletcher. 1991. Orconectes li- Conservation Fund, Project Number AG050523, Grant Agree- mosus (Crustacea: Cambaridae), an addition to the crayfish fauna ment WRCP-05102. Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, of New Brunswick. Canadian Field-Naturalist 105:386–387. Bellefonte, Pennsylvania. MDDNR (Maryland Department of Natural Resources). 2009. 2009 Lieb, D. A., R. W. Bouchard, and R. F. Carline. 2011. The crayfish fauna Maryland Fishing Guide. Maryland Department of Natural Re- of southeastern Pennsylvania: distributions, ecology, and changes sources, Annapolis, Maryland. over the last century. Journal of Crustacean Biology 31:166–178. Meredith, W. G., and F. J. Schwartz. 1960. Maryland Crayfishes. Edu- Lieb, D. A., R. F. Carline, and H. M. Ingram. 2007a. Status of Native cational Series No. 46, Maryland Department of Research and and Invasive Crayfish in Ten National Park Service Properties in Education, Solomons Island, Maryland. Pennsylvania. Technical Report NPS/NER/NRTR—2007/085. Meyer, K. M., K. Gimpel, and R. Brandl. 2007. Viability analysis of en- National Park Service, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. dangered crayfish populations. Journal of Zoology 273:364–371.

Fisheries • vol 36 no 10 • october 2011 • www.fisheries.org 505 Mohseni, O., T. R. Erickson, and H. G. Stefan. 1999. Sensitivity of Rodriguez, G., and H. Suarez. 2001. Anthropogenic dispersal of deca- stream temperatures in the United States to air temperatures pod crustaceans in aquatic environments. Interciencia 26:282– projected under a global warming scenario. Water Resources Re- 288. search 35:3723–3733. Roy, A. H., C. L. Faust, M. C. Freeman, and J. L. Meyer. 2005. Reach- Momot, W. T. 1984. Crayfish production—a reflection of community scale effects of riparian forest cover on urban stream ecosystems. energetics. Journal of Crustacean Biology 4:35–54. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 62:2312– Momot, W. T., C. Hartviksen, and G. Morgan. 1988. A range exten- 2329. sion for the crayfish Orconectes rusticus—Sibley Provincial Park, Roy, A. H., J. Freeman, and M. C. Freeman. 2007. Riparian influences northwestern Ontario. Canadian Field-Naturalist 102:547–548. on stream fish assemblage structure in urbanizing streams. Land- Mundahl, N. D., and M. J. Benton. 1990. Aspects of the thermal ecol- scape Ecology 22:385–402. ogy of the rusty crayfish Orconectes rusticus (Girard). Oecologia Roy, A. H., M. C. Freeman, B. J. Freeman, S. J. Wenger, J. L. Meyer, 82:210–216. and W. E. Ensign. 2006. Importance of riparian forests in urban Myers, J. H., D. Simberloff, A. M. Kuris, and J. R. Carey. 2000. Eradi- catchments contingent on sediment and hydrologic regimes. En- cation revisited: dealing with exotic species. Trends in Ecology vironmental Management 37:523–539. and Evolution 15:316–320. Ryan, R. J., and A. I. Packman. 2006. Changes in streambed sediment National Response Center. 2002. National response team incident characteristics and solute transport in the headwaters of Valley summaries. United States Coast Guard, Washington, D.C. Creek, an urbanizing watershed. Journal of Hydrology 323:74–91. NatureServe. 2010. An online encyclopedia of life. http://www.na- Schaefer, M. A., and D. Mastrull. 2007. Fuel spill fouls Darby Creek. tureserve.org/explorer. The Philadelphia Inquirer. February 23, 2007, Philadelphia, Nyström, P. 2002. Ecology. Pages 192–235 in D.M. Holdich, editor. Pennsylvania. Biology of Freshwater Crayfish. Blackwell Science, Oxford, U.K. Schwartz, F. J., R. Rubelmann, and J. Allison. 1963. Ecological popu- Ortmann, A. E. 1906. The crawfishes of the state of Pennsylvania. lation expansion of the introduced crayfish Orconectes virilis. Memoirs of the Carnegie Museum 2:343–523. Ohio Journal of Science 63:265–273. Parkyn, S. M., and K.J. Collier. 2004. Interaction of press and pulse Simmons, J. W., and S. J. Fraley. 2010. Distribution, status, and life- disturbance on crayfish populations: food impacts in pasture and history observations of crayfishes in western North Carolina. FIX LETTER forest streams. Hydrobiologia 527:113–124. Southeastern Naturalist 9:79–126. Peterjohn, W. T., and D. L. Correll. 1984. Nutrient dynamics in an Smith, G. R. T., F. M. Learner, F. Slater, and J. Foster. 1996. Habi- agricultural watershed: observations on the role of a riparian for- tat features important for the conservation of the native cray- est. Ecology 65:1466–1475. fish Austropotamobius pallipes in Britain. Biological Conservation SPACING Peters, J. A., and D. M. Lodge. 2009. Invasive species policy at the 75:239–246. regional level: a multiple weak links problem. Fisheries 34:373– Stanley, E. H., and M. W. Doyle. 2003. Trading off: the ecological 381. removal effects of dam removal. Frontiers in Ecology and the En- PFBC (Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission). 2009. Species by vironment 1:15–22. HERE FROM watershed approved for open system (flow-through) propagation Stebbing, P. D., G. J. Watson, M. G. Bentley, D. Fraser, R. Jennings, and introductions. http://www.agriculture.state.pa.us/agricul- S. P. Rushton, and P. J. Sibley. 2003. Reducing the threat: the po- ture/lib/agriculture/animalhealthfiles/Approved_Species_List_ tential use of pheromones to control invasive signal crayfish. Bul- Open_System_Aquaculture_for_Dep_of_Ag_2009_%284%29. letin Francais de la Peche et de la Pisciculture 370–371:219–224. -10 pdf. Steffy, L. Y., and S. S. Kilham. 2006. Effects of urbanization and land Phillips, I. D., R. D. Vinebrooke, and M. A. Turner. 2009. Ecosystem use on fish communities in the Valley Creek watershed, Chester consequences of potential range expansions of Orconectes virilis County, Pennsylvania. Urban Ecosystems 9:119–133. and Orconectes rusticus crayfish in Canada—a review. Environ- Storey, R. G., and D. R. Cowley. 1997. Recovery of three New Zea- mental Reviews 17:235–248. land rural streams as they pass through native forest remnants. Pinho, A. P., L. A. Morris, C. R. Jackson, W. J. White, P. B. Bush, and Hydrobiologia 353:63–76. A. T. Matos. 2008. Contaminant retention potential of forested Swecker, C. D., T. G. Jones, K. Donahue II, D. Mckinney, and G. D. filter strips established as SMZs in the Piedmont of Georgia. Jour- Smith. 2010. The extirpation of Orconectes limosus (Spinycheek nal of the American Water Resources Association 44:1564–1577. Crayfish) populations in West Virginia. Southeastern Naturalist Poff, N. L., and D. D. Hart. 2002. How dams vary and why it matters 9:155–164. for the emerging science of dam removal. Bioscience 52:659–668. Taylor, C. A. 2002. and conservation of native crayfish Possingham, H. P., S. J. Andelman, M. A. Burgman, R. A. Medellin, stocks. Pages 236–257 in D. M. Holdich, editor. Biology of Fresh- L. L. Master, and D. A. Keith. 2002. Limits to the use of threat- water Crayfish. Blackwell Science, Oxford, U.K. ened species lists. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 17:503–507. Taylor, C. A., and G. A. Schuster. 2004. The crayfishes of Kentucky. Puth, L. M., and T. F. H. Allen. 2004. Potential corridors for the rusty Illinois Natural History Survey, Special Publication No. 28, crayfish,Orconectes rusticus, in northern Wisconsin (USA) lakes: Champaign, Illinois. lessons for exotic invasions. Landscape Ecology 20:567–577. Taylor, C. A., G. A. Schuster, J. E. Cooper, R. J. DiStefano, A. G. Rodriguez, E. M., D. A. Medesani, and M. Fingerman. 2007. Endo- Eversole, P. Hamr, H. H. Hobbs III, H. W. Robison, C. E. Skel- crine disruption in crustaceans due to pollutants: a review. Com- ton, and R. F. Thoma. 2007. Endangered species—a reassessment parative Biochemistry and Physiology A - Molecular and Integra- of the conservation status of crayfishes of the United States and tive Physiology 146:661–671. Canada after 10+years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32:372– 389.

506 Fisheries • vol 36 no 10 • october 2011 • www.fisheries.org Taylor, C. A., M. L. Warren, J. F. Fitzpatrick, H. H. Hobbs, R. F. Westhoff, J. T., J. A. Guyot, and R. J. DiStefano. 2006. Distribu- Jezerinac, W. L. Pflieger, and H. W. Robison. 1996. Conservation tion of the imperiled Williams’ crayfish (Orconectes williamsi) in status of crayfishes of the United States and Canada. Fisheries the White River drainage of Missouri: associations with multi- 21:25–38. scale environmental variables. American Midland Naturalist Thoma, R. F., and R. F. Jezerinac. 2000. Ohio crayfish and shrimp 156:273–288. atlas. Ohio Biological Survey Miscellaneous Contributions No. Whitledge, G. W., and C. F. Rabeni. 2002. Maximum daily consump- 7. Ohio Biological Survey, The Ohio State University, Colum- tion and respiration rates at four temperatures for five species bus, Ohio. of crayfish from Missouri, U.S.A. (Decapoda, Orconectes spp.). Usio, N., H. Nakajima, R. Kamiyama, I. Wakana, S. Hiruta, and N. Crustaceana 75:1119–1132. Takamura. 2006. Predicting the distribution of invasive crayfish Wigginton, A. J., and W. J. Birge. 2007. Toxicity of cadmium to six (Pacifastacus leniusculus) in a Kusiro Moor marsh (Japan) using species in two genera of crayfish and the effect of cadmium on classification and regression trees. Ecological Research 21:271– molting success. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 277. 26:548–554. Utz, R. M., R. H. Hilderbrand, and R. L. Raesly. 2010. Regional dif- Wilcove, D. S., D. Rothstein, J. Dubow, A. Phillips, and E. Losos. ferences in patterns of fish species loss with changing land use. 1998. Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United Biological Conservation 143:688–699. States. Bioscience 48:607–615.

Fisheries • vol 36 no 10 • october 2011 • www.fisheries.org 507 Student Angle: 2011 American fisheries society Student Writing Contest Winner

Live to Spawn Another Day: Understanding the Fuel Efficiency of Snake River Steelhead

Zachary L. Penney Ph.D. Candidate, College of Natural Resources, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844-1142. E-mail: [email protected]

Imagine starting a car trip with a full tank of gas, but this gin moving downstream toward the ocean. It is unknown how is the only fuel you have for the entire trip. You must travel much energy remains when steelhead embark back to the Pa- uphill carrying a load of children nearly one-quarter the weight cific. To better understand how energy affects repeat spawning, of your entire vehicle. Your mission is to deposit these children I and two other graduate students at the University of Idaho in their rightful place 500 miles away. Here’s the catch—as if have set out to determine the fuel efficiency of Snake River it was not difficult enough already—at the completion of your steelhead. mission, your very existence will depend on your ability to re- turn to your starting destination. Although it sounds strange, Determining the fuel efficiency of a steelhead is no easy this scenario is not far off from the challenges faced by Idaho’s task, especially for the steelhead. Fats and proteins stored in Snake River steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). the muscle tissue provide an estimate of just how much fuel is left in the gas tank. Unfortunately, only through killing the fish Unlike Pacific salmon, which are preprogrammed to die and sampling the muscle tissue can we truly measure the total after spawning, steelhead have the ability to spawn repeatedly. energy content. Our results show that from the starting line This ability has captured the attention of fisheries managers to spawning, Snake River steelhead use over 98% of their fat who have recognized the conservation values of repeat spawn- stores and 27% of their muscle protein. This leaves protein as ing, specifically for threatened and endangered steelhead popu- the primary fuel source for their trip back to the ocean, which lations. When a steelhead can spawn more than once, the con- compared to fat is far less efficient. These findings indicate tribution of offspring may be more than doubled; additionally, that energy conservation during migration back to the Pacific when that steelhead is from a threatened population, invalu- is critical and that incidental delays, such as navigating dams, able genetics can be perpetuated. being caught by anglers, or harassment by graduate students, can mean life or death. We hope to provide managers with a Repeat spawning rates in steelhead are known to range as better understanding of the energetic capacity of Snake River high as 90% in coastal streams to less than 1% in rivers ex- steelhead so that in the future the information may be used to tending far inland. Only 2% of Snake River steelhead return to modify man-made obstacles and increase the ability of these Idaho to spawn a second time, which is presumably due to the remarkable fish to return to the ocean and live to spawn an- distance traveled and total time spent in freshwater. Yet, why other day. do some steelhead miraculously survive spawning but the vast majority perish? The answer to this is likely a matter of energy conservation.

The first law of thermodynamics tells us that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but it can be transformed from one state to another. Yet how that energy is transformed is another story altogether. Every summer, adult steelhead return- to the Columbia River following a one-to-three year residency in the North Pacific Ocean. Those migrating to the Colum- bia’s largest tributary, Idaho’s Snake River, must travel over 500 miles past eight large hydroelectric dams to reach the streams of their birth. Remarkably, Snake River steelhead make this long journey on a finite energy source—their own bodies!

Steelhead stop feeding after returning to freshwater and- exclusively rely on fats and protein stored in their tissues for energy. Steelhead remain in freshwater on this limited energy supply for 6 to 11 months before spawning in the spring of the following year. Following spawning, steelhead instinctually be- Author Zachary L. Penney

508 Fisheries • vol 36 no 10 • october 2011 • www.fisheries.org 2 March 2012

and titles by . Symposium abstracts9 March (in 2012. the same format as contributed abstracts; see below) are due Second Call for Papers: Twin Cities by The Program Committee is developing ways to increase the accessibility of symposia to all potential participants. See future calls for papers, e-mail messages and theFORMAT meeting FOR web SYMPOSIUM site for more PROPOSALS details. (Submit using AFS online symposium submission form)

1)When Symposium submitting title: your abstract include the 2)following: Organizer(s): Brief but descriptive Provide name, address, telephone number, fax number and e-mail address of each organizer. Indicate by an 3)asterisk Description: the name of the main contact person. The Minnesota Chapter of the American and marine systems (e.g. food web ecology, In 300 words or less, describe the topic addressed by the Fisheries Society would like to announcend climate change, stock assessment methods, the second call for papers for the 142 biotelemetry and other bioengineering proposed symposium, the objective of the Annual Meeting of the American Fisheries methods). Topics that bring inland symposium, and the value of the Society in the Twin Cities of Minneapolis (especially Great Lakes) scientists and 4)symposium Format and to AFS time members requirement: and and St. Paul, Minnesota! The meeting’s managers together with their marine participants. theme, “Fisheries Networks: Building colleagues will fit well into the “Networks” Ecological, Social and Professional theme for the meeting. Indicate the mix of formats (oral and Relationships,” promises to bring forth up- poster). State the time required for regular to-date and relevant information and Symposium organizers are responsible for oral presentations (i.e. 20 minutes per discussions about ecological networks and recruiting presenters, soliciting their speaker) and the time required for speed trophic food webs, social networks that abstracts, and directing them to submit presentations and poster viewing (3 inform human-fisheries interactions, and their abstracts and presentations through 5)minutes Chairs: per speaker plus one hour of professional networks that support and the AFS online submission forms. poster viewing). enhance interactions among fisheries Organizers are not required to recruit a full 6) PresentationSupply requirements: name(s) of individual(s) scientists19-23 as well August as other 2012 issues facing symposium at the time of proposal who will chair the symposium. aquatic resource professionals. AFS 2012 submissions. The Program Committee will 7) Audiovisual requirements: Speakers will be at the work with symposium organizers to should use PowerPoint for presentations. RiverCentre Convention Center and incorporate appropriate presentations that LCD neighboring Crowne Plaza Riverfront Hotel, were submitted as contributed papers. A projectors and laptops will be available in in downtown St. Paul. The sister Twin City symposium should include a minimum of every room. Other audiovisual equipment of Minneapolis will provide additional 10 presentations and we encourage needed for the symposium will be exciting activities for the meeting. We look organizers to limit their requests to one- 8)considered, Special seating but computer requests: projection is forward to seeing you in St. Paul and day symposia (about 20 oral strongly encouraged. Standard Minneapolis!GENERAL INFORMATION presentations). Symposia with more than 20 presentations will be strongly rooms will be arranged theatre-style. encouraged to convert some oral Please indicate special seating requests (for example, “after the break, a panel Fisheries professionals are invited to presentations to posters (see further discussion with seating for 10 panel submit symposia proposals and abstracts information in Poster section below). 9) List of presentations: members will be needed”). for papers in a range of topics and Regular oral presentations are limited to 20 Please supply disciplines, particularly those that focus on minutes, but double time slots (i.e. 40 information on: potential presenters, the meeting theme. We encourage minutes) may be offered to keynote tentative titles, and oral or poster participation by professionals at all levels speakers. 10) Sponsors: designations. and backgrounds, and especially students. 6 January 2012 If applicable, indicate The scientific program consists of three Symposium proposals must be submitted sponsorship. Please note that a sponsor is types of sessions: Symposia, Contributed by . All symposium proposal submissions must be made using not required. Papers, and Posters.YMPOSIA CONTRIBUTED PAPERS AND POSTERS S the AFS online symposium proposal submission form available on the AFS website (www.fisheries.org). The Program The Program Committee invites proposals The Program Committee invites abstracts Committee will review all symposium for symposia. Topics must be of general 27 January 2012 for contributed paper and poster sessions. proposals and notify organizers of interest to AFS members, and topics related Authors must indicate their preferred acceptance or refusal by . to the meeting theme will receive priority. presentation format: If accepted, organizers must submit a The Program Committee also encourages complete list of all confirmed presentations integrative symposia that span freshwater 1. Contributed paper only, Fisheries • vol 36 no 10 • october 2011 • www.fisheries.org 509 PROGRAM COMMITTEE CONTACTS Program Co-Chairs: 2. Poster only, and will be notified 13 Aprilof acceptance 2012 and the 3. Contributed paper preferred, but designated time and place of their poster acceptable. presentation by . Charles Anderson Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources Only one contributed paper presentation The Program Committee will group [email protected] will be accepted for each senior author. contributed papers thematically based on 651-259-5188 Oral presentations for contributed papers the title and two keywords you will choose will be limited to 20 minutes (15 minutes and prioritize during the abstract Peter Jacobson for presentation plus 5 minutes for speaker submission process. Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources introduction and questions). All oral [email protected] presenters are expected to deliver Late submissions will not be accepted. AFS Contributed218-699-7294 Papers Subcommittee PowerPoint presentations. does not waive registration fees for Chair: presenters at symposia, workshops, or We encourage poster submissions because contributed paper sessions. All presenters of the limited time available for oral and meeting attendees must pay Melissa Drake presentations. The program will include a registration fees. RegistrationMay 2012 forms will be Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources dedicated poster session to encourage available on the AFS website [email protected] discussion between poster authors and (www.fisheries.org) in ; register Symposia651-259-5245 Subcommittee Chair: attendees. In addition, the Program early forF costORMAT savings. FOR ABSTRACTS Committee is exploring alternative Title: presentation methods for posters. For Loren Miller example "Speed Presentations", short oral Format:An example abstract for the AFS Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources presentations of poster highlights, are Authors:2012 Annual Meeting [email protected] being considered, as well as exhibiting Oral Posters612-624-3019 Subcommittee Chair: symposium posters in the same room as oral symposium. Decisions on these Anderson, Charles. Minnesota Department alternatives will be provided in the final of Natural Resources, 500 Lafayette Road, Cindy Tomcko call for papers.STUDENT PRESENTERS St. Paul, MN 55155; 651-259-5188; Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources [email protected] [email protected] Jacobson, Peter. Minnesota Department of 218-999-7829 Student presenters must indicate if they Natural Resources, 27841 Forest Lane, wish their abstract to be considered for Presenter:Park Rapids, MN 56470; 218-699-7294; competition for a best presentation (i.e., Abstract:[email protected] paper or poster, but not both) award. If Charles Anderson they respond "no", the presentation will be Abstracts are used by the considered for inclusion in the Annual Program Committee to evaluate and select Meeting by the Program Committee, but papers for inclusion in the scientific and will not receive further consideration by technical sessions of the 2012 AFS Annual the Student Judging Committee. If students Meeting. An informative abstract contains a indicate "yes", they will be required to statement of the problem and its submit an application to the Student significance, study objectives, principal Judging Committee. Components of the findings and application, and it conforms to application will include an extended Studentthe prescribed presenter? format. An abstract must be abstract and a check-off from their mentor no more than 200 words in length. indicating that the study is at a stage No appropriateABSTRACT for consideration SUBMISSION for an award.

10 FebruaryAbstracts for2012 contributed papers and poster papers must be received by . All submissions must be made using the AFS online abstract submission form, available at •www.fisheries.org . When submitting your abstract: Use a brief but descriptive title, avoiding acronyms or scientific names • in the title unless the common name is not widely known; List all authors, their affiliations, • addresses, telephone numbers, and e- mail addresses; Provide a summary of your findings and restrict your abstract to 200 words. All presenters will receive an email confirmation of their abstract submission 510 Fisheries • vol 36 no 10 • october 2011 • www.fisheries.org PROGRAM COMMITTEE CONTACTS Program Co-Chairs: 2. Poster only, and will be notified 13 Aprilof acceptance 2012 and the The Steven Berkeley Marine Conservation Fellowship Winners 3. Contributed paper preferred, but designated time and place of their poster acceptable. presentation by . Charles Anderson Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources Only one contributed paper presentation The Program Committee will group [email protected] will be accepted for each senior author. contributed papers thematically based on 651-259-5188 This annual fellowship was created to honor the memory of Steven Berkeley, who passed away from cancer in June 2007. Oral presentations for contributed papers the title and two keywords you will choose Throughout his career, Berkeley was a passionate advocate of conserving fish populations and improving fisheries manage- will be limited to 20 minutes (15 minutes and prioritize during the abstract Peter Jacobson for presentation plus 5 minutes for speaker submission process. Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources ment by integrating basic research results and scrutinizing fundamental assumptions about fish stocks. On the East Coast, he introduction and questions). All oral [email protected] examined stock composition and by catch issues in large pelagic fishes and developed management plans as a staff member of presenters are expected to deliver Late submissions will not be accepted. AFS Contributed218-699-7294 Papers Subcommittee the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. After moving to the West Coast, he served on the Science and Statistical PowerPoint presentations. does not waive registration fees for Chair: Committee for both the North Pacific and Pacific councils. His research on maternal effects in rockfishes has been widely presenters at symposia, workshops, or recognized in demonstrating the need to protect older females in long-lived species, particularly through management mea- We encourage poster submissions because contributed paper sessions. All presenters sures such as marine protected areas. of the limited time available for oral and meeting attendees must pay Melissa Drake presentations. The program will include a registration fees. RegistrationMay 2012 forms will be Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources The 2011 recipient of the Berkeley Fellowship is Valentina Di Santo from Boston University. Honorable mention awards go to Lewis dedicated poster session to encourage available on the AFS website [email protected] discussion between poster authors and (www.fisheries.org) in ; register Symposia651-259-5245 Subcommittee Chair: Barnett, University of California–Davis, and Pablo Granados-Dieseldorff from A&M University. attendees. In addition, the Program early forF costORMAT savings. FOR ABSTRACTS Committee is exploring alternative Title: presentation methods for posters. For Loren Miller Valentina Di Santo example "Speed Presentations", short oral Format:An example abstract for the AFS Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources presentations of poster highlights, are Valentina Di Santo is a Ph.D. student in Dr. Phillip Lobel’s laboratory at Boston University where she Authors:2012 Annual Meeting [email protected] investigates the effect of synergistic climate change stressors on fish physiology. In recent years, differences being considered, as well as exhibiting Oral Posters612-624-3019 Subcommittee Chair: symposium posters in the same room as in response of fish populations to environment variability have been recognized as an important component oral symposium. Decisions on these Anderson, Charles. Minnesota Department of adaptation. However, there is still a knowledge gap in the understanding of physiological and behavioral alternatives will be provided in the final of Natural Resources, 500 Lafayette Road, Cindy Tomcko responses in fish challenged by interacting climate change factors (for instance, fast warming and increasing call for papers.STUDENT PRESENTERS St. Paul, MN 55155; 651-259-5188; Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources ocean acidification). Because each of these single stressors reduces whole-organism performance and sur- [email protected] [email protected] vival, thereby causing changes in biogeographical ranges, Valentina is studying their combined effect on fish Jacobson, Peter. Minnesota Department of 218-999-7829 physiology. For her dissertation work, Valentina is examining the effect of temperature and CO2 concentra- Student presenters must indicate if they Natural Resources, 27841 Forest Lane, tions on two latitudinally separated populations of little skate (Leucoraja erinacea) physiology at different life wish their abstract to be considered for Park Rapids, MN 56470; 218-699-7294; Presenter: stages by employing a whole-organism approach combined with biochemical methods and behavioral tech- competition for a best presentation (i.e., [email protected]: paper or poster, but not both) award. If Charles Anderson niques. Without the understanding of physiological and behavioral responses of fish to climate change, it is they respond "no", the presentation will be Abstracts are used by the difficult to meaningfully predict future biogeographical shifts and population dynamics. Therefore, results considered for inclusion in the Annual Program Committee to evaluate and select deriving from her research will enable prediction of physiological and behavioral adjustments and tailoring Meeting by the Program Committee, but papers for inclusion in the scientific and of specific conservation strategies for elasmobranchs living in a changing, rather than stable, environment. will not receive further consideration by technical sessions of the 2012 AFS Annual the Student Judging Committee. If students Meeting. An informative abstract contains a indicate "yes", they will be required to statement of the problem and its submit an application to the Student significance, study objectives, principal Judging Committee. Components of the findings and application, and it conforms to application will include an extended Studentthe prescribed presenter? format. An abstract must be abstract and a check-off from their mentor no more than 200 words in length. indicating that the study is at a stage No appropriateABSTRACT for consideration SUBMISSION for an award.

10 FebruaryAbstracts for2012 contributed papers and poster papers must be received by . All submissions must be made using the AFS online abstract submission form, available at •www.fisheries.org . When submitting your abstract: Use a brief but descriptive title, avoiding acronyms or scientific names • in the title unless the common name is not widely known; List all authors, their affiliations, • addresses, telephone numbers, and e- mail addresses; Provide a summary of your findings and restrict your abstract to 200 words. All presenters will receive an email confirmation of their abstract submission Fisheries • vol 36 no 10 • october 2011 • www.fisheries.org 511 Lewis Barnett Lewis Barnett is a doctoral student at University of California–Davis, working with advisors Marissa Baskett and Louis Botsford on spatial popula- tion models that allow him to ask questions about the effects of climate vari- ability and species interactions on size/age structure, population persistence, and fishery yield. These models are motivated by the biology and ecology of rockfishes (Sebastes sp.) and the trophic webs of the temperate reefs they in- habit. Although implementation of marine reserves is often proposed to pro- tect temperate reef ecosystems from climate change effects, approaches for accomplishing this objective have been primarily qualitative. One obvious shortfall in the progression toward a quantitative understanding is the ab- sence of temporal environmental variation in marine reserve models. This is why Lewis plans to research how climate change–dependent variability in re- cruitment affects population persistence, thereby providing insights into how reserve network design can be modified to mitigate climate change threats and meet management and conservation targets. To accomplish these objec- tives, he is developing dynamic, spatially explicit, age-structured models with density dependence, incorporating environmental and maternal effects on larval survival. He will compare size distributions resulting from model simu- lations with age-structured predator–prey interactions to size distributions from monitoring data collected in regions of California with existing marine reserve networks. It is hoped that these comparisons will provide explana- tions for some of the observed patterns and reveal what may be wrong with our current theory of conservation and management of subtidal ecosystems.

Pablo Granados-Dieseldorff Pablo Granados-Dieseldorff is currently a doctoral candidate in ge- ography at Texas A&M University studying under Dr. William D. Hey- man’s supervision in the Marine & Coastal Geography Group and the Applied Biodiversity Science NSF-IGERT Doctoral Program. His doc- toral dissertation is investigating the biogeography and management of mutton snapper (Lutjanus analis) in southern Belize. The mutton snap- per fishery is highly valuable and regionally shared throughout the Ca- ribbean. The unregulated harvest from their highly predictable spawn- ing aggregations has been of special concern to fisheries managers who seek to reverse stock declines and prevent additional fishery collapses. The Belize Barrier Reef, in the Western Caribbean, hosts mutton snap- per spawning aggregations that occur in waters accessed by fishers from Belize, Honduras, and Granados-Dieseldorff’s native country, Guatema- la. The dissertation aims to (1) characterize the geography of fishing of mutton snapper and the associated snapper–species fishery complex in southern Belize using a fishery–systems–science framework; (2) evalu- ate the stock status of mutton snapper using a stakeholder-centered ap- proach; (3) identify and predict high-quality juvenile habitat using a geographic information system–based habitat suitability spatial model; (4) explore dispersal ability and degree of spatial stock mixing when mutton snapperaggregate to spawn using geochemical tracers in fish oto- liths and tissue; and (5) simulate long-term impacts of spatial manage- ment on the population dynamics of mutton snapper project will lead to specific conservation recommendations for his study fishery and region and contribute methodologically to data-sparse fisheries conservation and management more broadly.

512 Fisheries • vol 36 no 10 • october 2011 • www.fisheries.org In Memoriam: JOSEPH NELSON

Joseph Nelson, Contributor of Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico

Joseph Nelson (AFS member, 1961), former head of the University of Alberta’s (U of A) zoology department, died this past August from leukemia at the age of 74.

Joe Nelson belonged to that rarified group of AFS “Golden Members,” having belonged to AFS for 50 years. From 1998 to 2008 he authored seven articles published in Fisheries magazine, many of them dealing with fish common name issues. He also authored articles published in both Transactions of the Ameri- can Fisheries Society and the North American Journal of Fisheries Management. Joe was appointed chairman of the AFS Names of Fishes Committee in 1991, serving as chair of the committee until 2010 when he stepped down due to illness. Second, Joe and his committee decided to provide both He started his career working for the federal Fisheries De- the English and Spanish common names for each freshwater partment during his undergraduate studies at the University of and marine species found in Mexico and to provide both the British Columbia and then traveled to Edmonton to do a mas- English and French common names for species found in Que- ter’s degree at the U of A and to study the fish of the Kanan- bec. Also, for freshwater species, the country of occurrence is askis River. provided.

Although his first passion was astronomy, Joe took an in- The sixth edition covers 3,700 species and 3,694 fishes. terest in fish because he had enjoyed studying the fish in his It added 1,271 more species than were listed in the previous bedroom fish tank, and it was in fisheries where he knew he edition. A notable new feature of the sixth edition was the ad- could make money. “Working at the fisheries really piqued his dition of a companion CD-ROM bound in the book. interest, so that’s what he studied,” said his beloved wife, Clau- dine Nelson. Throughout the publishing process for the sixth edition, Joe remained cool and calm, moderating widely differing opin- After completing his Ph.D. in British Columbia in 1965, ions among his six expert committee members and leading Joe returned to Edmonton in 1968 and became an assistant them to a consensus opinion. Joe was equally helpful to the professor in zoology at the U of A, where he published many AFS book staff working on production of the sixth edition, research papers on fishes. In addition, he coauthored The Fishes because he was always available for questions of organization, of Alberta (two editions) with M. J. Paetz and authored Fishes of copyediting, typography, indexing, and composition. the World (four editions). He chaired a committee of seven that in 2004 published Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from As with previous editions of the Names of Fishes series, the United States, Canada and Mexico Sixth Edition. “Joe is world the sixth edition has become a widely used reference work and renowned for his book,” said U of A professor Mike Belosevic, has contributed substantially to uniform use of common names. who worked in the biological sciences department with Joe. Several users describe it as their “Purple Bible,” a reflection of the volume’s purple cover and authority. Were it not for Joe’s From 2001 to 2004, Joe and his fellow committee members continuous efforts, the Names of Fishes book would not be the spent thousands of hours working on finalizing the sixth edi- authoritative resource it is today. tion of Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico. This normally mammoth task was Joe also received several top-level and international made even more difficult and time consuming because the awards for his work in ichthyology. Some of the awards he re- committee made several key changes that improved this al- ceived include the following: the Robert H. Gibbs Jr. Memorial ready impressive volume: Award, for an outstanding body of published work in system- atic ichthyology, American Society of Ichthyologists and Her- First, Joe and his committee decided to include species petologists, 2002; J. Dewey Soper Award, Alberta Society of found in Mexico, making the sixth edition the first modern list- Professional Biologists, 2003; Alberta Centennial Medal (via ing in one place of the entire ichthyofauna of North America. the Department of Sustainable Resource Development), 2006;

Fisheries • vol 36 no 10 • october 2011 • www.fisheries.org 513 Artedi Lecturer Diploma, for outstanding and world-leading contributions in the field of the nature, interrelationship, and From the Archives distribution of fishes, at the Royal Swedish Academy of Sci- A warden had made a complaint against a ences, Sweden, 2008; Fry Medal, Canadian Society of Zoolo- gists, given to a Canadian Zoologist who has made an outstand- man for having taken three trout under the legal ing contribution to knowledge and understanding of an area size—the accused promptly admitted his guilt and in zoology, 2010; Robert K. Johnson Award for Excellence in inquired of the Justices how much his experience Service, American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetolo- would cost him. “Sixty dollars and the costs of gists, 2010; and the William E. Ricker Resource Conservation prosecution,” was the reply. “That is rather a high Award, American Fisheries Society, 2011—which had been presented to him at his home in July; the event was videotaped price to pay for three little trout,” replied the of- and then broadcast in September at the 141st Annual Meeting fender, as he reached down into his pocket for his of the American Fisheries Society. “Joe Nelson’s many years of wallet. “I should say so,” chimed in one of those service to the society, particularly as chairman of the Names of individuals who are so frequently found in courts Fishes Committee, clearly made him deserving of our recogni- of justice; “I tell you these fish and game laws are tion and appreciation,” said Aaron Lerner, director of publica- tions for AFS. nothing but outrages on the public; they are made for some brownstone front dudes with silver thin- Joe also served as chair and associate chair of zoology at ga-ma-jigs to go fishing, and they are nothing but the U of A and as an associate dean for the Faculty of Science robbery as far as the poor man is concerned.” The for six years. He was very involved with the American Soci- defendant stopped for just one instant in the ex- ety of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists and served many roles with the organization. ploration of his pocket, apparently astonished at the interference, and then produced the necessary He was a long-serving member of the Committee on the funds and liquidated his indebtedness to the state. Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), serving Then turning to his would-be-defender, he said: “I primarily on the Freshwater Fishes Specialist Subcommittee. think, my friend, you are mistaken. The fish and Much of his research on Alberta fishes was on pelvicless stick- lebacks (primarily in Astotin Lake). Also, on a world scale, he game laws are all right, and I should have known described 15 marine fish species and coauthored in describing better. Even if there were no law against the tak- four more. He has had three living fish species named after him ing of small trout I ought to have known better, and one fossil acanthodian fish. for I am old enough and have fished enough to know that if all the little fellows are taken out Joe had three other hobbies: astronomy, genealogy, and karate. He was a black belt and taught karate at the Jewish there will never be any big ones. Community Center as a hobby. “The first time he ever went to Europe to a meeting by himself, he almost got mugged in H.P. Frothingham,Eleventh Annual Fish-Cultural Association Paris, so when he returned here to Edmonton, they were offer- ing a karate course at the center, and the head karate person didn’t think he’d ever continue,” said his wife, Claudine. “But he became a seventh degree karate instructor and he taught for years.”

514 Fisheries • vol 36 no 10 • october 2011 • www.fisheries.org Column: GUEST DIRECTOR’S LINE Observations from Recreational Fishing in the Northern Gulf of Mexico One Year after the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Donald C. Jackson Donald C. Jackson is the Sharp Distinguished Professor of Fisheries at Mis- Mississippi River to the Gulf took about one hour. During our sissippi State University in Starkville, Mississippi, and past president of the ride downstream to the Gulf, through the various passes, I no- American Fisheries Society. He is the author of Tracks, published by the ticed a lot of water hyacinth Eichhornia crassipes along the mar- University Press of Mississippi (2006), and Trails, published by Strode Pub- lishers (1984). gins of marshland and also adrift in the river and out in the Gulf. In this past July’s issue of Fisheries (Vol. 36, No. 7, pp. 355– 356) I shared some perspective regarding last year’s oil spill in Our fishing guide (Captain Keith Kennedy, Born to Fish the Gulf of Mexico. I mentioned reports that recreational fish- Charters, P.O. Box 667, Venice, LA 70092, tel: 504-908-3108; ing this summer along the Gulf Coast was reported to be pretty the same guide we’ve used for the last few years) said that even good and that I had scheduled a trip myself. I took that fishing as far upstream as Venice we could fish for estuarine species. trip during the second week of August. You deserve a report We declined, preferring to fish the coastline right where the from that venture. Mississippi River enters into the Gulf. Upon arrival in Gulf waters, we rarely fished more than half a mile from marsh or I fished for three days with a couple of old friends of mine beach. The water we fished in was generally four to eight feet from —fishing buddies for over 50 years now. We’re deep. There were numerous other anglers fishing in the marsh- pretty serious about our fishing. We accessed the Gulf via the es and out in the Gulf around us. Additionally, the local fire Mississippi River from Venice, Louisiana. The trip down the department held a fishing derby during our last day of fishing.

Don Jackson of Mississippi State University (left) and Don Flynn (right) of North Little Rock, Arkansas each with red drum over 25 pounds caught from the Gulf of Mexico near the mouth of the Mississippi River in August 2011. These fish were released. Note the body condition on the fish. Photo: Aniel House.

Fisheries • vol 36 no 10 • october 2011 • www.fisheries.org 515 Fishing trips and events like the derby generally don’t happen Bagre marinus and hardhead catfish Arius felis. Obviously there unless people think there are fish to catch. So, we considered wasn’t a dissolved oxygen problem in the area we were fishing, the other anglers and the derby as good signs. We were not because these catfishes tend to be bottom feeders. We caught disappointed. only one spotted seatrout Cynoscion nebulosus but it was a dan- dy—weighing almost three pounds. There were also numerous The fishing for red drum Sciaenops ocellatus was very good. birds, particularly terns (several species), gulls (several species), During our three day trip we caught 63 red drum; most were frigatebirds, Black Skimmers, Brown Pelicans, various shore- in the 20 to 25 pound range—too big to keep. The limit on birds, and the occasional duck. I observed no marine mammals. red drum in Louisiana is five fish per person per day. The mini- On our last day of fishing we were checked by law enforce- mum size limit is 16 inches, and red drum over 27 inches must ment officers with the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and be released. However, recreational anglers may, if they wish, Fisheries. As they approached our boat they noticed that we keep one red drum greater than 27 inches per day. My largest were in the process of battling a very large red drum. They re- weighed 32 pounds. I released it back into the Gulf. spectfully kept their distance until the fish was landed and, in fact, cheered us on. Then they came to our boat with incredible As a fisheries biologist, I was also interested in seeing courtesy. Finding everything in good order, they wished us con- whether there were smaller fish in the area. At my request the tinued good luck and then carefully, and as quietly as possible, guide took us to another spot and we caught several smaller red moved their boat away from the area in which we were fishing. drum. There is size segregation in terms of habitat use by red They did not assume full power in their boat until they were drum. The very small fish tend to stay in, or near, the cover of about 300 yards from us—absolutely professional. Louisiana marsh grass. I looked at scales from a few of the fish we caught. can be very proud of these officers. Relative to spacing between annuli from previous years, last year’s growth seemed to be pretty good. I observed commercial shrimping where we were fishing. There seemed to be plenty of shrimp for sale in the Venice area. There were lots of sharks. In fact, I’d never seen so many I bought 10 pounds of freshly caught brown shrimp Farfante- sharks along this section of coastline. Most were blacktip shark penaeus aztecus from a local vendor at $4.00/pound. The guys I Carcharhinus limbatus and spinner shark Carcharhinus brevipin- na. We had some sharks attack red drum that we were reeling into the boat. I caught a blacktip shark that was approximately six feet long (that’s huge for a blacktip shark). It took me nearly 30 minutes to bring that rascal up to the boat with the light tackle I was using. At one point I could actually see the spool on my reel. The shark had stripped off over 150 yards of line. Miracles happen. Somehow that shark had foul-hooked itself on one of its pectoral fins as it attacked the large popping cork I was using to attract red drum to my lure. After getting the shark to the boat I released it by breaking the line. It was too large to bring into the boat. Sharks that actually hit our lures and took them into their mouths quickly cut the multifilament braided line we were using. But, before breaking off, they all managed to put our hearts up into our throats—Absolutely thrilling!

We noticed an abundance of striped mullet Mugil cephalus and shrimp, particularly in the shallower areas. During late af- ternoons sharks moved into these shallow areas and attacked the mullet. During one of those periods we had to stop fishing and just watched as sharks ripped into schools of forage fishes all around us. Had we fished, we would probably never have gotten our hooked fish to the boat. The sharks were that nu- merous.

Plankton blooms in shallow water near shore were very Don Jackson (left, watching) and Don Flynn (right) engaged in landing a large red drum from the Gulf of Mexico near the mouth of the Missis- dense, reducing visibility to just a few inches below the surface, sippi River in August 2011. Note the light spinning tackle used. “Born but the water cleared considerably once we were 300–400 yards to Fish Charters” specializes in guiding anglers who prefer to fish for offshore. We caught a lot of marine catfishes: gaftopsail catfish red drum with light tackle. Photo: Aniel House.

516 Fisheries • vol 36 no 10 • october 2011 • www.fisheries.org was fishing with bought another 30 pounds. When I returned shrimp I saw and purchased, the birds I observed, the plank- home from my fishing trip I boiled the shrimp and grilled red ton blooms, or the aesthetics of the surrounding environment. drum fillets for my family. The quality of the shrimp and the Other than the increased abundance of sharks, one difference fish was excellent. The shrimp were so big that it took two to that I did notice was that the condition of the red drum we three bites to eat one. caught was, on average, better than I’d seen before in this area.

As a scientist I try to be very careful with my observations. I will not speculate regarding proposed and ongoing sci- I understand the importance of sample size and experimental ence addressing last year’s oil spill and its long-term implica- design for credible quantitative analyses. I look at fisheries from tions. It is important that we do not get in front of that science. the perspective of a scientist, even when I am engaged person- But what I observed and experienced on my recent fishing trip ally in recreational angling (as I was on this trip to the Gulf). I chipped away at the dark imaginings that plagued my thoughts believe that a scientific perspective makes me a better angler. A one year ago and filled me with hope for the future of fishing in scientific perspective does not, however, indicate that there is the northern Gulf of Mexico. actual science involved. Accordingly, it is very important that my recent fishing excursion on the Louisiana coast be recog- nized for what it was—a fishing trip, not a scientific endeavor. At most, what I saw can only qualify as initial observations Make sure to look for the spring release of Wilder along a pathway that may lead to science. It is, however, ap- Ways: A Lifelong Outdoorsman and Teacher’s Accounts of propriate for me to give you a summary interpretation of my the Powerful Bond between Nature and Humanity by Don- experience. ald C. Jackson (Illustrated by Robert T. Jackson), pub- lished by University Press of Mississippi. Had I not known about last year’s oil spill prior to this trip I In Wilder Ways, Donald C. Jackson takes readers on would never have guessed that one had occurred. Impacts from a journey into the deep and very personal connections the oil spill may exist, but during my venture I wasn’t able to that can develop between people and wild places while discern them in terms of our fishing, our red drum catches, the hunting, fishing, and rambling across landscapes. Fish- ing by lantern light late at night for bullhead catfish on a small stream, hunting wood ducks and squirrels on his farm in north Mississippi, bow hunting deer as twilight creeps across a small clearing, catching crabs by hand- line in the Pascagoula River estuary, hunting caribou in Alaska and elk in , searching for blind fish in Ozark caves, and fighting a storm on an Indonesian river, Jackson leads us into reflections of our own jour- neys and helps us to understand that we can be part of a wilder way, often very near to our homes. Jackson travels through tall grass, wet with early morning dew, light tackle in hand, down to a “ditch” under a Mississippi highway bridge to discover that the ditch is really a very fine stream full of fish. He recaptures the essence of hunting by stalking fox squirrels in a small patch of hardwoods. He describes the eerie, beckoning whistle of wings as ducks pass overhead in the predawn fog. He reveals salt air and the power of a redfish as it strips line from the fishing reel while the sunset turns the marsh to gold. Under starlight along an Alaska river after an afternoon of grayling fishing, he contemplates the value of solitude. He will have readers falling in love again with tents, tractors, and old brown dogs. Through the shared journeys in Wilder Ways, Jackson taps into the rhythms of the earth, understanding that the wilds are not something separate from humanity. Dr. Aniel House, a physician from North Little Rock, Arkansas with a red drum caught caught from the Gulf of Mexico near the mouth of the Mis- sissippi River in August 2011. This fish was released. Photo: Don Flynn.

Fisheries • vol 36 no 10 • october 2011 • www.fisheries.org 517 Journal Highlights: North American Journal of Aquaculture, Volume 73, Number 3

Skin Color Characterization in Rainbow Trout by Use [Communication] of Computer-Based Image Analysis. Nelson Colihueque, Preliminary Tests Margarita Parraguez, Francisco J. Estay, and Nelson F. Diaz. 73: of Responses of 249–258. New Zealand Mudsnails Chloramine-T Margin-of-Safety Estimates for Fry, Potamopyrgus Fingerling, and Juvenile Rainbow Trout. James D. Bowker, antipodarum to Daniel Carty, Charlie E. Smith, and Silas R. Bergen. 73: 259– Copper-Based 269. Substrates. Christopher A. Effects of Dietary Distillers Dried Grains with Solubles Myrick and Sarah and Soybean Meal on Extruded Pellet Characteristics and K. Conlin. 73: Growth Responses of Juvenile Yellow Perch. Travis W. 327–331. Schaeffer, Michael L. Brown, and Kurt A. Rosentrater. 73: 270–278. Evaluation of Selected [Communication] Sexual Maturation and Milt Quality Commercial of the San Pedro Mártir Trout Using an Artificial Starter Feeds Photoperiod. Marisela Aguilar-Juárez, Gorgonio Ruiz-Campos, for Sunfish Fry Culture. Gregory A. Dudenhoeffer, James E. and Carmen G. Paniagua-Chávez. 73: 279–284. Wetzel, and Thomas R. Omara-Alwala. 73: 332–338.

[Technical Note] Sex Determination of Yellow Perch by [Technical Note] An Evaluation of Two Egg Collection External Morphology. Jeffrey A. Malison, James A. Held, and and Two Fertilization Techniques during Landlocked Fall Sarah E. Kaatz. 73: 285–287. Chinook Salmon Spawning. Matt Wipf, Michael E. Barnes, and Dan J. Durben. 73: 339–342. Use of Fish Hydrolysates and Fish Meal Byproducts of the Alaskan Fishing Industry in Diets for Pacific White Shrimp Efficacy of a Commercial Probiotic Relative to Litopenaeus vannamei. Ian P. Forster, Peter Bechtel, Warren Oxytetracycline as Gram-Negative Bacterial Control G. Dominy, Sandro Lane, Roberto Avena, Zhi Yong Ju, and Agents in a Rotifer (Brachionus plicatilis) Batch Culture. Lytha Conquest. 73: 288–295. Federico J. Rotman, Marty Riche, Peter Van Wyk, and Daniel D. Benetti. 73: 343–349. Effects of Temperature and Salinity on Larval Growth, Survival, and Development of the Sea Cucumber Effects of Replacement of Menhaden Fish Meal Protein Apostichopus japonicas. Li Li, Qi Li, Xiujun Sun, and Lingfeng by Solvent-Extracted Soybean Meal Protein Supplemented Kong. 73: 296–303. with or without L-Methionine and L-Lysine in the Diet of Juvenile Southern Flounder. Md Shah Alam, Wade O. [Communication] Isometamidium Chloride Reduces Watanabe, Amanda R. Myers, Troy C. Rezek, Patrick M. Mortality of Adult Chinook Salmon due to Cryptobia Carroll, and Shawn Longfellow. 73: 350–359. salmositica. Martin F. Chen, Yuk W. Cheng, Denis Popochock, Brian Russell, John Kerwin, James Bertolini, Jan Gleckler, Kevin [Communication] Performance and Macronutrient Snekvik, and Sushan Han. 73: 304–310. Composition of Age-0 Burbot Fed Four Diet Treatments. Nathan R. Jensen, Paul J. Anders, Carol A. Hoffman, Lucas S. Comparative Production of Channel Catfish and Channel × Porter, Susan C. Ireland, and Kenneth D. Cain. 73: 360–368. Blue Hybrid Catfish Subjected to Two Minimum Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations. Bartholomew W. Green and Steven D. [Book Review] Freshwater Prawns: Biology and Farming, Rawles. 73: 311–319. Edited by M. B. New, W. C. Valenti, J. H. Tidwell, L. R. D’Abramo, and M. N. Kutty. Reviewed by John Wickins.73: Oxygen Consumption of the Prawn Macrobrachium 369–370. americanum over the Temperature Range of its Native Environment and in Relation to its Weight. Marcelo García- [Erratum] Residual Tannic Acid Destroys Virucidal Guerrero, Javier Orduña-Rojas, and Edilmar Cortés-Jacinto. 73: Properties of Iodophor. Emily R. Cornwell, Geoffrey H. 320–326. Groocock, Rodman G. Getchell, and Paul R. Bowser (volume 73: 8–12). 73: 371.

518 Fisheries • vol 36 no 10 • october 2011 • www.fisheries.org To submit upcoming events for inclusion on the AFS Calendar: web site calendar, send event name, dates, city, state/ province, web address, and contact information to FISHERIES EVENTS [email protected].

(If space is available, events will also be printed in Fisheries magazine.) More events listed at www.fisheries.org

DATE EVENT LOCATION WEBSITE Oct 18-20, 2011 IFM Institute of Fisheries Management 2011 42nd Oxford, UK http://www.ifm.org.uk/events/ Conference Oct 18-21, 2011 Aquaculture Europe 2011 Rhodes, Greece https://www.was.org/EasOnline/Default. aspx Oct 26-27, 2011 The Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC) Erie, Pennsylvania http://ec.gc.ca Oct 30-31, 2011 NPAFC International Workshop on Explanations for Nanaimo, British Colum- http://www.npafc.org/new/index.html the High Abundance of Pink and Chum Salmon and bia, Canada Future Trends Nov 5-10, 2011 The Wildilfe Society 18th Annual Conference Waikoloa, Hawaii http: www.wildlifesociety.org

Nov 8-11, 2011 Europort 11 Rotterdam, Zuid-Holland http://europort.nl Nov 14-18, 2011 Annual Alaska Chapter Conference Girdwood, Alaska htpp://www.fisheriessociety.org/afs-ak/

Nov. 15–17, 2011 Mid-Atlantic Stream Restoration Conference Rocky Gap, Maryland http://www.fws.gov/chesapeakebay/ Masrc/index.html Dec 4-7, 2011 72nd Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference Des Moines, Iowa http://www.midwest2011.org

Dec 6-8, 2011 62nd Northwest Fish Culture Conference 2011 Victoria, BC http://www.gofishbc.com/nwfcc_2011. htm Dec 6-8, 2011 62nd Northwest Fish Culture Conference 2011 Victoria, BC http://www.gofishbc.com/nwfcc_2011. htm Jan 31–Feb 2, Virginia Tech Chapter of the AFS Blacksburg, Virginia http://www.vtafs.org.vt.edu 2012

Fisheries • vol 36 no 10 • october 2011 • www.fisheries.org 519 Column: PRESIDENT’S HOOK

Continued from page 477 visory Board is taking the results of an external review of our website and services and implementing a plan to improve our website and delivery of web services. This Board is also investi- gating options for virtual (electronic) attendance at our annual and Governing Board meetings to facilitate attendance. Our large collaborative network provides many opportunities for members to have access to and become involved in AFS. We need to work to strengthen the network ties between all units and members. I welcome your ideas and suggestions for how to make this happen.

520 Fisheries • vol 36 no 10 • october 2011 • www.fisheries.org Employers: to list a job opening on the AFS online job cen- October 2011: ter submit a position description, job title, agency/company, city, state, responsibilities, qualifications, salary, closing JOBS date, and contact information (maximum 150 words) to [email protected]. Online job announcements will be billed at $350 for 150 word increments. Please send billing infor- Assistant Professor | Auburn University | Dept. of mation. Listings are free (150 words or less) for organiza- Fisheries and Allied Aquacultures | PhD tions with associate, official, and sustaining memberships, and for individual members, who are faculty members, hir- Salary: Salary is commensurate with qualifications and experi- ing graduate assistants. if space is available, jobs may also ence. be printed in Fisheries magazine, free of additional charge. Closing: 11/1 or until filled Responsibilities: Auburn University’s Department of Fisheries and Allied Aquacultures is seeking applicants for the position of Assistant Professor as a Quantitative Fisheries Biologist. This is a Responsibilities: Senior level or Full Professor. We seek a sci- nine-month, tenure track position 75 research, 25 teaching with entist with a strong quantitative background in fisheries science an expected start date of August 16, 2012. and management, simulation modeling, and statistics, and with demonstrated applied accomplishments in aquatic conservation Qualifications: An earned Ph.D. from an accredited institution and/or fisheries management. Responsibilities include teach- in Fisheries, Biological Sciences, or a related field by the position ing graduate and undergraduate courses, supervising graduate start date. The successful candidate must have documented ex- students, and conducting research. perience in research in the area of quantitative fisheries science resulting in peer-reviewed publications. Qualifications: Ph.D. We seek a leading-edge senior scientist who will meet the criteria and qualify for a Tier 1 Canada Re- Contact: A position announcement that contains requirements, search Chair. A research emphasis on wild Pacific salmon is de- application instructions and other information can be found at sirable, but other research foci will also be considered. below link by clicking on Employment or obtained by contacting Contact: Applicants should see the full job description at the Dr. Russell Wright, Chair, Search Committee, Dept of Fisheries link below. Send a Curriculum Vitae, samples of relevant reprints, and Allied Aquacultures, 203B Swingle Hall, Auburn Univ, AL a brief 2-4 page statement of your research vision and teaching 36849 Phone: 334 844-9311 Fax: 334 844-9208 Minorities and philosophy, and immediately request three referees to send con- women are encouraged to apply. Auburn University is an Affir- fidential letters of recommendation directly to: Dr. Frank Gobas, mative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer. Director, School of Resource and Environmental Management, Link: http://www.ag.auburn.edu Simon Fraser University, Room 8425, TASC 1 Bldg., 8888 Uni- versity Dr., Burnaby, B.C., CANADA V5A 1S6 Tel: 778-782- Email: [email protected] 3074 FAX: 778-782-4968 or the email address below. Link: http://www.rem.sfu.ca/about/employment/ M.S. or Ph.D. Assistantship in Fisheries | Aquatic Email: [email protected] Ecology | Univ of Illinois | IL Natural History Survey | Student Salary: $19,200/yr including waiver of tuition ACCSP Fisheries Systems Programmer | Atlantic States arine isheries ommission ermanent Closing: 1/1 M F C ASMFC | P Salary: $60,000 - $70,000 annually Responsibilities: : Research topics are varied and flexible, but individuals with interests related to three projects are preferred, Closing: Until filled invasion ecology of Asian carp, recruitment, behavior, physiol- Responsibilities: Providing information systems software devel- ogy, reproductive strategies, and management of largemouth bass, opment, maintenance and operations for the Atlantic Coastal population ecology of muskellunge. Starting dates in June through Cooperative Statistics Program ACCSP including develop- August, 2012. ing/maintaining web-based user interfaces and user reporting Qualifications: B.S. or M.S. in fisheries/aquatic ecology software and developing software to verify the integrity of data received by the program. Contact: Send a cover letter, resume, copies of transcripts, GRE scores, and three letters of reference to: Dr. David H. Wahl, Uni- Qualifications: Bachelors degree/minimum 3 years of directly- versity of Illinois, 1816 S. Oak Street, Champaign, IL 61820. related computer experience. Experience with Oracle software development emphasis on Oracle PL/SQL, Application Express, Email: [email protected] JDeveloper, and Discoverer. Experience in development of other, web-based user interfaces such as HTML, ASP, SHTML, JSP with large-scale relational database systems. Working knowledge Canada Research Chair in Quantitative Fisheries Sci- of UNIX and Windows operating systems. Experience with high ence and Mgmt Tenure-track, Associate | Graduate level programming languages such as C , PERL, JAVA, VB etc. School of Resource and Environmental Mgmt. |Simon and proficiency in software development process. Fraser University, BC, Canada | Permanent Contact: Resume/cover letter: Laura Leach, ASMFC 1050 Salary: To be negotiated North Highland Street, Suite 200 AN, Arlington, VA 22201, Closing: Until filled fax 703 842-0741 or at the email address below. Email: [email protected]

Fisheries • vol 36 no 10 • october 2011 • www.fisheries.org 521 522 Fisheries • vol 36 no 10 • october 2011 • www.fisheries.org