Full Issue PDF Volume 37, Issue 5

This article was downloaded by: [Department Of Fisheries] On: 18 June 2012, At: 21:45 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Fisheries Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ufsh20 Full Issue PDF Volume 37, Issue 5

Available online: 02 May 2012

To cite this article: (2012): Full Issue PDF Volume 37, Issue 5, Fisheries, 37:5, 193-240

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03632415.2012.686833

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. VOL 37 NO 5 FisheriesAmerican Fisheries Society • www.fisheries.org MAY 2012

Anticipating Environmental Disasters

The Role of Ecological Networks

Native Prey Fish and Alien Piscivorous Fish in the Northwest

Freshwater Fish Assemblages and Habitats in the Southeast

The Genoa National Fish Hatchery Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:45 18 June 2012 SEE INSERT

03632415(2012)37(5) NMT Research Grants

Up to $15,000 in NMT’s Coded Wire TagsTM equipment will be distributed to one or more recipients. Apply by Aug 21, 2012.

Northwest Marine Technology (NMT) is pleased to Visible Implant announce that we will continue to offer our Innovative Elastomer TagsTM Research Grant to support fish and wildlife research and management. For 2012, the grant will have a total value of up to $15,000 in NMT’s products to be distributed to one or more recipients.

Whether you are an existing customer or have never used our products before, we encourage you to apply. Applications are welcome from any country and from Visible Implant any agency or institution. A wide range of projects will TM be considered. We are particularly interested in Alpha Tags supporting innovative projects that use our tags in a new way, or use the information gathered from a tagging project in a new way. The grants can be applied only toward the purchase or rental of any product sold by NMT, and have no cash value.

Applications will be evaluated on the scientific merits of the research and the innovative use of our products. Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:45 18 June 2012 Grants will be awarded at the sole discretion of NMT. Recipients will be announced at the AFS Annual Meeting in St. Paul.

For more details, please visit our website or contact Geraldine Vander Haegen ([email protected]; 360.709.6800). Juvenile & Adult Fish Counters

Northwest Marine Technology, Inc. www.nmt.us Shaw Island, Washington, USA Corporate Office Biological Services 360.468.3375 [email protected] 360.596.9400 [email protected] Fisheries VOL 37 NO 5 MAY 2012 Contents COLUMNS President’s Hook 195 Ecological Networks: Their Role in Fisheries Introducing Dr. Villy Christensen, one of the plenary speakers at this year’s annual meeting. Bill Fisher—AFS President Guest Director’s Line 233 Frontloading the Science in Anticipation of Environ- mental Disasters It is time to try a different model for funding scientific Collecting eggs from wild walleye for spawning. underpinning that includes targeted baseline information, 226 Source: USFWS standardized and validated methods, and research and development to improve opportunity for new and innovative SECTION UPDATES techniques and approaches. 226 Fish Culture Section Exclusive: Better Know a Usha Varanasi Hatchery – Genoa National Fish Hatchery; Canadian HEADLINERS Aquatic Resources Section Gets a Voice in the Canadian 196 Recreational Fishing and Hunting Heritage and Op- Science and Policy Arena; A Look into the Past from the portunities Act; Healthy Waters Coalition Supports Farm Fish History Section Bill Measures to Reduce Nutrient Runoff; India’s 5-year IN MEMORIAM Budget Cycle for Science; Summary of Agency Budget Priorities for FY2013; Concern Over Proposed Changes to 229 Mark B. Bain Federal Fisheries Act. AFS 2012 ANNUAL MEETING FEATURES 230 Continuing Education Program at the 142nd Research American Fisheries Society Anual Meeting in the Twin Cities 201 Patterns in Catch Per Unit Effort of Native Prey Fish and Alien Piscivorous Fish in 7 Pacific Northwest NEW AFS MEMBERS 235 USA Rivers Piscivorous alien fish are associated with reduced popula- JOURNAL HIGHLIGHTS tion sizes of native prey species, at least during the summer low flow period, and are potential threats to prey species Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:45 18 June 2012 236 North American Journal of Aquaculture persistence. Volume 74, Number 1, January 2012 Robert M. Hughes and Alan T. Herlihy 236 Journal of Aquatic Animal Health Habitat Volume 24, Number 1, March 2012 212 Assessment of Freshwater Fish Assemblages and CALENDAR Their Habitats in the National Park Service System of the Southeastern United States 237 Fisheries Events The highest diversity of freshwater fish species can be found in the southeast region of the United States, but until now there ANNOUNCEMENTS has been no broad-scale assessment to determine how the Na- tional Park System units (and units of other federal agencies) 238 May 2012 Jobs can help to conserve broader scale biodiversity of these fishes.

James M. Long, Nathan P. Nibbelink, Kevin T. McAbee, Cover: “Fishes” created by S. Gilbert and Julie W. Stahli ERRATUM In the April 2012 issue of Fisheries (vol 37, no 4), the translated title for the Spanish-language abstract for the article “Benefits and Risks of Adopting the Global Code of Practice for Recreational Fisheries” which appeared on page 165 was incorrect. The correct translation for this title should be: “Riesgos y beneficios de adoptar un código global de prácticas para pesquerías recreativas.” We apologize to the authors for this error. 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 DUES AND FEES FOR 2012 ARE: $80 in North America ($95 elsewhere) for PRESIDENT SENIOR EDITOR SCIENCE EDITORS Denny Lassuy regular members, $20 in North America ($30 William L. Fisher Ghassan “Gus” N. Rassam Marilyn “Guppy” Blair Daniel McGarvey elsewhere) for student members, and $40 Jim Bowker Allen Rutherford ($50 elsewhere) for retired members. PRESIDENT ELECT DIRECTOR OF PUBLICATIONS Howard I. Browman Roar Sandodden John Boreman Aaron Lerner Mason Bryant Jeff Schaeffer Fees include $19 for Fisheries subscription. Steven R. Chipps Jesse Trushenski Nonmember and library subscription rates are FIRST VICE PRESIDENT MANAGING EDITOR Steven J. Cooke Jack E. Williams $157 in North America ($199 elsewhere). Robert Hughes Sarah Fox Ken Currens Jeffrey Williams Andy Danylchuk Price per copy: $3.50 member; $6 nonmem- SECOND VICE PRESIDENT Michael R. Donaldson ber. Donna Parrish Andrew H. Fayram BOOK REVIEW EDITOR Stephen Fried Francis Juanes PAST PRESIDENT Larry M. Gigliotti Wayne A. Hubert Madeleine Hall-Arbor Alf Haukenes ABSTRACT TRANSLATION EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Jeffrey E. Hill Pablo del Monte Luna Ghassan “Gus” N. Rassam Deirdre M. Kimball

Fisheries (ISSN 0363-2415) is published monthly by the American Fisheries Society; 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110; Bethesda, MD 20814-2199 © copyright 2012. Periodicals postage paid at Bethesda, Maryland, 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 Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:45 18 June 2012 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 Animal Health: _____$25 ONLINE ONLY; _____$45 NORTH AMERICA PRINT; _____$54 OTHER PRINT Fisheries InfoBase: ____$25 ONLINE ONLY

194 Fisheries • Vol 37 No 5• May 2012• www.fisheries.org COLUMN Ecological Networks: President’s Hook Their Role in Fisheries Bill Fisher, President

The theme of the 2012 AFS Annual Meeting in been applied to marine Minneapolis–St. Paul, Minnesota (afs2012.org), is “Fisheries food webs to understand Networks: Building Ecological, Social, and Professional Net- how the strength of inter- works.” I have invited three plenary speakers to address this actions between predators theme, and for the next three “President’s Hooks” I will intro- and their prey affects the duce the topic and the speaker. Dr. Villy Christensen is up first. stability of the community Villy is Professor at the University of British Columbia (UBC) in the face of overfishing Fisheries Centre and Director of the Nippon Foundation–UBC (Bascompte et al. 2005). AFS President Fisher may Nereus Program. He will be speaking about ecological net- Network theory is advanc- be contacted at: works in fisheries based on his extensive experience working in ing our understanding of [email protected] freshwater and marine ecosystems. food webs in aquatic ecosystems. Ecological networks have been recognized in fisheries and aquatic science for at least 70 years, although they have taken For his plenary talk, Villy will draw lessons from his ex- on a new look in the last decade. Raymond Lindeman’s clas- perience with food web modeling, including how humans have sic paper on the trophic dynamic aspects of ecology (Lindeman impacted the oceans. He will demonstrate some new approaches 1942) described the connections and trophic interactions of bio- for science communication to the public. His current research ta in lakes and defined the ecosystem to include the components is focused on one question: Will there be seafood and healthy and processes of the biotic community and abiotic environ- oceans for future generations? His work is conducted through ment. This paper was truly foundational to our understanding the Nereus–Predicting the Future Ocean Program, which is a of aquatic ecosystems and contained perhaps the first image of cooperative initiative of the Nippon Foundation and the Uni- an ecological network for trophic relationships in lakes. Fast- versity of British Columbia. The Nereus Program develops forward to the 21st century through hundreds of studies on the global models to evaluate the impact of fisheries and climate trophic ecology and food web structure of aquatic communi- change on marine populations. The work involves participation ties, which have provided us with a greater understanding of in global initiatives that evaluate future scenarios for the world the role of producers and consumers at all tropic levels and oceans. Villy is the lead developer of the Ecopath with Ecosim their function of aquatic ecosystems. We have moved from the approach and software, which is used extensively throughout descriptive phase to the predictive phase, where we can now the world for ecosystem-based management of marine areas, forecast changes to aquatic ecosystems in response to actions and he will build his talk on 20+ years’ of experience with eco- such as fish harvest, introduced invasive species, and changes logical networks. to our climate (Ahrens et al. 2012). Information empirically derived or obtained through estimation has helped scientists and I believe that Villy will provide an exciting and thought- managers build models that are improving our understanding of provoking opening to the plenary session and set the stage for Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:45 18 June 2012 the current state of aquatic ecosystems and are better at predict- the next two speakers, Dr. Barbara Knuth and Dr. Bill Taylor. ing their future. Barb will be featured in next month’s “President’s Hook.” The topic of her plenary talk will be on social networks in fisheries. Ecological networks are complex. These networks—based Stay tuned. on graph theory—are defined by nodes, which represent species or functional groups connected to links, which can represent REFERENCES trophic interactions or material flows. Scientists are finding that Ahrens, R. N. M., C. J. Walters, and V. Christensen. 2012. Foraging different ecological networks have similar statistical properties. arena theory. Fish and Fisheries 13:41–59. For example, they are not randomly assembled; they are stable Bascompte, J. 2007. Networks in ecology. Basic and Applied Ecology in response to natural perturbations; they are heterogeneous, 8:485–490. Bascompte, J., C. J. Melian, and E. Sala. 2005. Interaction strength with most nodes having a small number of connections and a combinations and the overfishing of a marine food web. Proceed- few nodes having many connections; and new nodes in a net- ings of the National Academy of Science 102:5443–5447. work preferentially attach to nodes with many links (Bascompte Lindeman, R. L. 1942. The trophic-dynamic aspect of ecology. Ecol- 2007). The value of applying network theory to ecological ogy 23:399–418. systems such as food webs is that it allows us to understand Proulx, S. R., D. E. L. Promislow, and P. C. Phillips. 2005. Network the stability and robustness of the system; for example, how thinking in ecology and evolution. Trends in Ecology and Evolu- a system responds to the invasion of an exotic species or the tion 20:345–353. removal of a native species (Proulx et al. 2005). Networks have

Fisheries • Vol 37 No 5• May 2012 • www.fisheries.org 195 HEADLINERS

Legislation S.2066: Recreational Fishing and Hunting Heritage and Opportunities Act This bill, sponsored by Senator Lisa Murkowski, seeks to recognize the heritage of recreational hunting, fishing, and shooting on federal public land and ensure continued opportunities for those activities. A coalition of 34 organizations from the recreational fishing, hunting, shooting, and wildlife conservation community have expressed their support of this legislation.

Provisions • Establishes an “open unless closed” policy for recreational hunting, fishing, and shooting on lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. • Retains the discretion of federal land management agencies to establish closures or restrictions, pursuant to all existing legal authorities, where and when the agencies determine that such closures or restrictions are appropriate or necessary. • Directs management of federal public lands to facilitate the use of and access to these lands for recreational hunting, fishing, and shooting Wilderness Act Photo credit: D. Kenan with certain exceptions, such as for national security and within the limitations of other federal statutes. • Requires that recreational hunting, fishing, and shooting be addressed in land management plans in order to protect public access and to encourage proactive management of these activities. • Prevents the sudden closure of lands to recreational hunting, fishing, and shooting without public knowledge or input when lacking sound scientific support. • Requires that written notice be given to the authorizing congressional committees and the public and that coordination with state fish and wildlife agencies occurs before a federal land management action closes or restricts 1,280 or more contiguous acres (or the aggregate of small closures) to recreational hunting or fishing or both. • Removes ambiguity about requirements imposed upon the U.S. Forest Service when developing land management plans by granting the agency discretion to look beyond its borders to the recreational opportunities offered by other federal or state agencies. • Ensures that lands designated as wilderness, wilderness eligible or suitable, and primitive or semi-primitive areas are considered open to all legal forms of recreational hunting, fishing, and shooting unless there are legitimate reasons to close such areas. • Affirms an original purpose of the Wilderness Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-577, section 4(c)) by which the Act is to be “supplemen- Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:45 18 June 2012 tal” to and not a hindrance in facilitating the original or primary purpose(s) for which the federal land was established. • Eliminates duplicative and costly environmental analyses of hunt programs imposed upon the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by a court ruling in a lawsuit brought by anti-hunters. • Allows federal agencies to lease or permit its lands for the construction of shooting ranges and to designate specific lands for recreational shooting. • Ensures that a greater liability is not imposed upon the federal government for designating areas for safe shooting than for designating trails, campgrounds, boat launches, and other recreational sites. • Allows the use of skilled volunteers in assisting federal land managers in controlling overpopulations of wildlife where hunting is otherwise prohibited. • Asserts the authority of the state fish and wildlife agencies to manage resident wildlife on federal lands. • Will not open national parks or monuments managed by the National Park Service to recreational hunting or shooting. • Will not open lands designated as wilderness to activities prevented by the Wilderness Act, including the use of mechanized or motorized equipment or vehicles, timber harvesting, or mineral extraction. • Does not include any land or water held in trust for the benefit of Indians or other NativeAmericans.

~ Kevin Lynch (for any policy or legislation stories, please contact Kevin directly at [email protected])

196 Fisheries • Vol 37 No 5• May 2012• www.fisheries.org Legislation Healthy Waters Coalition Supports Farm Bill Measures to Reduce Nutrient Runoff

The American Fisheries Society has joined a broad cross section of municipal water and wastewater organizations, state clean water officials, and conservation and sustainable agricultural organizations in calling on Congress to strengthen the links between water quality and agricultural practices. According to the coalition members, it is imperative to reduce the amounts of nitrogen and phosphorous runoff in order to restore and maintain clean and safe waters in the United States.

Therefore, the following recommendations were made in a joint sign-on statement to Congress: • Make policy and budgetary reforms to existing conservation programs in order to reduce nutrient runoff in impaired watersheds. • Require conservation compliance in all commodity and crop and revenue insurance programs. • Link federal payments and premium subsidies to the goal of avoiding ad- verse water quality impacts. Grasse River Remedial Options Pilot Study • Provide monitoring and evaluation tools and incentives to help farmers de- Photo credit: NOAA velop the most efficient nutrient management practices for site-specific soil and crop conditions.

~ Kevin Lynch

Legislation India’s 5-year Budget Cycle for Science (XIIth Plan from April 2012 to 2017)

During my travels in India in early 2012, I visited several fishery and oceanic institutions that are members of India’s Ministry of Earth Sciences, Department of Agriculture, or the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research. These visits were to connect with colleagues I already knew as well as to visit new places and meet new people. During these visits, which included giving talks on my work on marine ecosystem and human health and related science and technology topics, I had the opportunity to meet a number of senior scientists and directors. Everywhere I Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:45 18 June 2012 went there was the mention that this year was significant because it entailed the transition to, and implementation of, the next 5-year budget and strategic plan for science and technology. The XIIth plan period (2012–2017) will commence from April 2012, marking completion of the previous period of 2007–2012. Unlike in the United States, where federal budget including funding for science and technology is deliberated and approved annually, India’s science and technology budget is approved on 5-year cycle with the conviction and commitment that science and The XIIth Plan Photo credit: S. Fox scientific inquiry need to have time to mature and should not be subjected to the annual cycle of funding uncertainties.

Science plans are formulated by each science organization for a period of 5 years and submitted to their specific ministry (agency) of the government of India to obtain approvals. Once approved, an administrative order to this effect is issued by the concerned ministry stating clearly the schedule of activities, collaborating agencies, and yearly funding allocations for the scheme. The progress in implementation of the scheme is monitored at regular intervals by an expert committee constituted by the concerned ministry and, subject to satisfactory progress, funds are released on an annual basis by the ministry during the approved plan period of 5 years. In other words, each year progress reports are prepared, but unless something has gone seriously awry, all institutions expect to continue to receive their budget according to the approved plans for the 5-year cycle. India is starting the 2012–2017 funding cycle, and there is considerable excitement, planning meetings, and activity at the directorate level of each science and technology institu-

Fisheries • Vol 37 No 5• May 2012 • www.fisheries.org 197 tion. For an ex-federal employee in the United States who often had to wait almost half a year before knowing what my current year budget would look like and what programs will be funded or cut, I am impressed and also a bit envious that my Indian counterparts are comfortable knowing their budget profile for the 5-year cycle. Also, I heard often that the Indian government has made a con- scious and deliberate effort to fund fundamental science due to the concern that most bright youngsters are attracted to computer sciences and information technology applications and they may have shortage of scientists capable of tackling complex scientific challenges in near future.

Note: These are my views based on a brief visit, so it is a bird’s-eye view that may miss the complexities underneath, but I wanted to convey the fundamental difference between the United States and India in funding of science and technology by the government. It appears that in India the funding for science and technology is considered as long-term investment rather than current-year expense.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT My thanks to Dr. V. N. Sanjeevan, Director, Centre for Marine Living Resources & Ecology, and Dr. Satheesh C. Shenoi, Director, Indian National Centre for Ocean Information Services (Ministry of Earth Sciences, Government of India). ~ Usha Varanasi

Legislation Summary of Agency Budget Priorities for FY2013

FishNet, an informal group of professional societies and organization, together with representatives of Federal agencies, held its annual budget briefing recently. Representatives from U.S. Geological Survey, NOAA Fisheries, Fish & Wildlife Service, Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service presented their agencies’ FY2013 budgets for fisheries programs. The agency officials noted the tight budgetary times and most did not expect to receive more funding than was enacted in FY2012. Here are the highlights from the presentations:

U.S. Geological Survey 2013 President’s Request: $1.162B • Increases for ecosystem priorities: CA Bay Delta, Chesapeake Bay, Columbia River, Everglades, Puget Sound, Asian Carp Control, Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement & Sustaining Ecosystem Capitol • Increases ecosystem mission areas: Brown Tree Snakes, White Nose Syndrome, Coral Reefs, WaterSMART & Hydrological Fracturing NOAA Fisheries 2013 President’s Request: $880.3M • Expand annual stock assessments • Increase support for observing and monitoring fisheries • Increase support for fisheries oceanography U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2013 President’s Request: $1.247B • $131,607,000 for Fisheries Program Budget • $43,189,000 for National Fish Hatchery Operations • $17,997,000 for Maintenance & Equipment • $55,072,000 for Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office • $9,424,000 for Aquatic Invasive Species U. S. Forest Service 2013 President’s Request: $1.623B Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:45 18 June 2012 • $0 for Wildlife & Fisheries Habitat Management ($40,036 enacted in 2012) • $0 for Vegetation & Watershed Management ($184,046 enacted in 2012) • USFS Fisheries biologists identified project opportunities totaling more than $80 million in FY 2013 – more than 2.5 times the esti- mated budget available for Fisheries • Fish passage: federal agency coordination to develop consistent design standards and programmatic permitting • Continue to provide outstanding and unique recreational fishing opportunities and improve related habitat • Aquatic Invasive Species: prevent, detect, rapidly respond, control/contain, monitor and educate in collaboration with federal, state, municipal and NGO partners Bureau of Land Management 2013 President’s Request: $1.098B • $87.4M for Wildlife/Fisheries T/E Management ($71.9M enacted in 2012) • Continued coordination with NFHAP Partnerships, NFWF, Aquatic Invasive Species, AFS, Trout Unlimited & Challenge Cost share National Park Service 2013 President’s Request: $2.250B • Ocean & Coastal Resource Stewardship: $1.5 M • Removal of Elwha Dam: $3.481M • Fisheries Management Program will focus on Watershed High Priority Projects (Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, Buffalo National River, St. Croix National Scenic River, Kaloko-Honokohau National Historic Park & St. Croix National Scenic River) • Fisheries Management Program will also focus on Aquatic Invasive Species in Parks (Quagga Mussels in Great Lakes, Lionfish in Southeast and Caribbean, VHS in Lake Superior and Asian Carp in Great Lakes Parks, Mississippi, St. Croix NSR & Missouri NRR) ~ Kevin Lynch

198 Fisheries • Vol 37 No 5• May 2012• www.fisheries.org Canadian Aquatic Resources Section Concern Over Proposed Changes to Federal Fisheries Act

March 20, 2012

Hon. Keith Ashfield, Minister Fisheries and Oceans Canada 200 Kent Street 13th Floor, Station 13E228 Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0E6 Canada

Dear Minister Ashfield:

We are writing this letter on behalf of over 300 Canadian fisheries professionals who are members of the Canadian Aquatic Resources Section (CARS) of the American Fisheries Society (AFS) with mutual interest in fisheries and aquatic resources in Canada. The American Fisheries Society (AFS), with a membership of over 9,000 members, is the world’s oldest and largest organization dedicated to strengthening the fisheries profession, advancing fisheries science, and conserving fisheries resources. Our membership includes academics, private and public sector professionals and scientists as well as those working in the not-for-profit sector and students. The Section was initiated in 1991 to provide a forum for discussion of Canadian aquatic resource issues and the future of the fisheries profession in Canada.

The Canadian Aquatic Resources Section wishes to express our concern over possible changes to the Federal Fisheries Act and associated policies. We agree that there is a

Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:45 18 June 2012 need to improve the predictability, consistency and timeliness of review processes related to habitat management, but also believe that your government needs to fully consult with the Canadian public, as the government is the chief steward of the environment and habitat. Indeed, the environment (including fish habitat) is Canada’s most valuable public asset. If we are to manage for sustainable fisheries, then we need to explicitly recognize fish habitat as the foundation of these fisheries as it is now in section 35(1) of the Federal Fisheries Act. The Federal Fisheries Act and associated habitat policy along with fish habitat management activities conducted by Fisheries and Oceans Canada are the envy of other jurisdictions around the globe. There certainly are opportunities for improving the delivery of fish habitat programing (e.g., as identified by the Auditor General), but we are light-years ahead of other jurisdictions and must continue to show leadership in habitat science and management.

The Federal Fisheries Act is perhaps the most significant Act protecting and conserving the fisheries and related habitat of fish in Canada. The Habitat Provisions in Section 35(1), are the foundation of modern management of fisheries in Canada and the clear protection and management of fish habitat is essential to sustainability of fisheries and

Fisheries • Vol 37 No 5• May 2012 • www.fisheries.org 199 the aquatic environments where fish exist. Sustainable fish populations and their habitat are indicative of a healthy and clean environment for people as well. Healthy habitats provide not only opportunities for fish but are important to the social and economic wellbeing of Canadian society as a whole.

We believe that open dialogue is important in the matter of modernizing the language and intent of the Federal Fisheries Act and welcome the opportunity to improve the regulatory process and improving the intent of the Act which is to create sustainable fisheries and sustainable habitats for fish.

We would be pleased to provide assistance to the government and specifically to Fisheries and Oceans Canada to improve the regulatory process.

Dr. Steven J. Cooke, Canada Research Chair and Associate Professor Biology Department and Institute of Environmental Science Carleton University, Ottawa CARS President

Jack G. Imhof, Director of Conservation Ecology Trout Unlimited Canada CARS President-Elect

cc. Office of the Prime Minister 80 Wellington Street

Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:45 18 June 2012 Ottawa ON, K1A 0A2

From the Archives There is a popular idea that fish can live on water, an idea that it is unnecessary to tell this association is erroneous. That fish will live long without food is shown by that persecuted fish—the goldfish, which is kept for months in glass globes without food, the owners declaring that they live “on what they get from the water.” That newly hatched fish and small species get some microscopic food in ponds and streams is well known, but a fish a quarter of a pound weight requires something more substantial; besides fish do not breathe in their food, at least our game fishes do not, but first see it and then seize it. It is doubtful if a trout or bass of a quarter of a pound weight can see the minute daphnia and the other small animal life on which it first fed.

Mr. Fred Mather, Twelfth Annual Meeting, Fish-Cultural Association

200 Fisheries • Vol 37 No 5• May 2012• www.fisheries.org FEATURE Research Patterns in Catch Per Unit Effort of Native Prey Fish and Alien Piscivorous Fish in 7 Pacific Northwest USA Rivers Robert M. Hughes Senior Research Professor, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University, 200 SW 35th Street, Corvallis, Oregon 97333; Amnis Patrones en la captura por unidad Opes Institute. E-mail: [email protected] de esfuerzo de peces nativos y peces Alan T. Herlihy piscívoros foráneos en siete ríos del Senior Research Professor, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon Pacífico Noroeste de los Estados Unidos State University, 200 SW 35th Street, Corvallis, Oregon 97333 de Norteamérica RESUMEN: es comúnmente aceptado que las especies ABSTRACT: Nonnative or alien invasive species are com- no nativas o foráneas constituyen una amenaza para las monly accorded threats to native biological assemblages; comunidades biológicas locales; no obstante, resulta however, it is difficult to separate the effects of aliens from other complicado separar el efecto que tienen estas especies covarying disturbances. We evaluated the effect of alien pisciv- invasoras frente a otras perturbaciones co-variantes. Se orous fish on native prey species in seven Pacific Northwest evaluó el efecto de los peces piscívoros foráneos sobre es- rivers through the use of a spatially balanced random sample of pecies nativas en siete ríos del Pacífico Noroeste de los 20 sites on each river. The rivers lacked large main-stem dams, Estados Unidos de Norteamérica, mediante un muestreo al and point sources, if any, met state and federal water quality azar espacialmente balanceado en 20 localidades dentro standards. Individual sample sites were electrofished a distance de cada río. Los ríos carecían de drenajes importantes y los equal to 50 times their mean wetted channel widths, and all existentes, de haber alguno, cumplían con los estándares fish were identified to species, measured, and returned to the federales en cuanto a calidad del agua. En cada locali- rivers alive (except for museum voucher specimens). At nearly dad de muestreo se llevó a cabo una colecta por medios all sites in all seven rivers, we found that the catch per unit eléctricos (electro-pesca) a una distancia equivalente a 50 effort (CPUE) of native prey species varied inversely with the veces el ancho del canal de inundación; todos los peces CPUE of alien piscivores. In the two rivers most dominated by fueron identificados a nivel especie, medidos y devueltos alien piscivores, we collected native prey at only 20%–25% of vivos a los ríos (excepto aquellos especímenes destinados the sites. We conclude that piscivorous alien fish are associated a museos). En casi todas las localidades de los siete ríos, with reduced population sizes of native prey species, at least se encontró que la captura por unidad de esfuerzo (CPUE) during the summer low-flow period, and are potential threats to de las especies nativas de peces, varió de manera inversa prey species persistence. con respecto a la CPUE de los peces piscívoros foráneos. En los dos ríos que estaban dominados mayormente por INTRODUCTION especies piscívoras, se colectaron especies nativas sólo en el 20-25% de las localidades. Se concluye que, al menos Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:45 18 June 2012 Because alien fish introductions affect species and eco- durante los periodos de flujo reducido en el verano, los systems inconsistently, there are conflicting views on their peces piscívoros foráneos se relacionan con reducciones consequences (Baltz and Moyle 1993; Moyle and Light 1996). poblacionales de las especies nativas y constituyen una Based on patterns in site and basin diversity, Oberdorff et al. amenaza potencial a la persistencia de las especies lo- (1998), Gido and Brown (1999), Rathert et al. (1999), and Teje- cales.mentos relacionados a la liberación y los derechos de rina-Garro et al. (2005) reported that alien fish species could los animales, pueden tener consecuencias muy importantes be added without affecting native species richness at the basin para las pesquerías recreativas. scale. However, Ross (1991) concluded that native fish populations of three continents declined 77% of the time following introduction of aliens. Leprieur et al. (2008) reported that alien major causes of fish extinctions. Hughes et al. (2005) concluded invasive fishes were associated with altered fish assemblage that alien species altered native fish assemblages in Southwest- composition at the basin scale globally. Lassuy (1995), Rose ern U.S. rivers and Sanderson et al. (2009) considered them (2005), Reed and Czech (2005), and Dextrase and Mandrak major threats to endangered salmon populations in the Pacific (2006) concluded that invasive alien species are a major factor Northwest. However, in most of the preceding cases, aliens in fish endangerment, and Miller et al. (1989) listed them as were associated with additional major pressures, such as habitat alteration or major main-stem dams, and those covarying Robert M. Hughes was a visiting professor in the Laboratory of Fish Biology at disturbances cloud conclusions. the Universidade Federal de Lavras, Brazil at the time of submission.

Fisheries • Vol 37 No 5• May 2012 • www.fisheries.org 201 Regardless of their potential effects, alien fish introduc- the four on the east side of the Cascades had largely steppe tions are widespread. Leprieur et al. (2008) identified regions catchments. The rivers ranged in size from the Malheur (27.8-m on six continents where alien invasive fish represented more mean width, 1.0-m mean thalweg depth, 7,847-km2 catchment than 25% of all fish species. Lomnicky et al. (2007) found that area) to the Willamette (126-m mean width, 2.9-m mean thal- alien vertebrates represented more than 50% of individuals in weg depth, 13,554-km2 catchment area). Main-stem distances 22% of the stream length in the conterminous Western United sampled ranged from 87 to 254 km for the Chehalis and Willa- States. Aliens also occurred in more than 50% of the stream mette, respectively (Figure 1). Except for temporary low-head length and appeared in more than 80% of the length represented irrigation diversions on the lower Malheur River, the rivers and by large rivers. their tributaries were accessible to fishes for spawning, -rear ing, and migration. We used information from Wydoski and Some alien piscivores, such as smallmouth bass Microp- Whitney (1979), Scott and Crossman (1973), Bond (1994), and terus dolomieu, have been considered potentially important Rathert et al. (1999) to estimate expected native prey species predators of hatchery and wild Pacific salmonids (Fritts and based on their ranges and life histories. Pearsons 2004, 2006) and endangered Yampa River fishes (Johnson et al. 2008), but they remain protected, popular, and Sampling and Data Analyses widespread sport fish in Oregon and Washington coolwater rivers. Fishery management agencies justify those protections The length of each of the 20 sites was 50 times the mean because salmonid smolt out-migrations largely occur during wetted channel width (MWCW), which was divided into 10 high, cold flows when smallmouth bass and other warmwater equidistant subsites (each 5 MWCW long; Hughes and Peck alien piscivores are assumed to be unable to effectively feed 2008). This site length was found sufficient for collecting all on salmonids (Shrader and Gray 1999; Jahns and Nass 2010). species except those captured only once or twice in sites 100 Additionally, the lower reaches of such rivers are now too warm MWCW long (Hughes et al. 2002; Hughes and Herlihy 2007; during the summer to support rearing salmonids. However, Kanno et al. 2009), and 50 MWCW produced nearly twice as such assumptions about salmonids may be irrelevant for native many species in the Willamette River as did fixed site lengths coolwater petromyzontids, cyprinids, catostomids, percopsids, of 500–1,000 m (LaVigne, Hughes, Wildman, et al. 2008). We and cottids that reproduce or rear in those lower reaches and sampled fish by daytime raft electrofishing along alternating are potential prey for alien piscivores. For example, Fritts and shorelines for two subsites (10 MWCW) or we fished the thal- Pearsons (2008) reported that smallmouth bass preyed heav- weg when rapids or other obstacles necessitated it. Due to its ily on dace (Rhinichthys) and mountain whitefish (Prosopium effectiveness in collecting nearly all species and size classes williamsoni) in the Yakima River, Washington. Scott and Cross- present with minimal bias, nearshore electrofishing was adopted man (1973) described smallmouth bass as a generalist predator as the standard fish sampling method in rivers by the Euro- on crayfish as well as benthic and water column fishes once the pean Union, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S. bass are 5 cm long, and Wydoski and Whitney (1979) attributed Geological Survey (Meador et al. 1993; Comité Européen de the rapid growth of smallmouth bass in the Columbia River to Normalisation [CEN] 2003; Hughes and McCormick, in press). the abundance of cyprinids, catostomids, and cottids there. One netter collected all fish possible as the rower maneuvered the raft downstream at a slightly greater velocity than the river; To evaluate the effect of alien piscivores on all resident total operating time of the electrofisher averaged one hour per coolwater native fish (not only salmonids) that might serve as site but varied with current velocity. The electrofisher was a prey, we sampled seven rivers in Oregon and Washington. All Smith-Root GPP 2.5 (Smith-Root, Vancouver, Washington) op- seven rivers lacked major main-stem dams, and point source erated at 30–60 pps pulsed DC and 400–1,000 V depending on Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:45 18 June 2012 dischargers, if any, met state and federal water quality stan- conductivity. The collected fish were identified, measured, and dards. Our objective was to compare patterns in catch per unit returned to the river alive at the end of each subsite. effort (CPUE) of native prey against the CPUE of alien predators. We hypothesized that the CPUE of native prey fish would Data were entered on computer scan forms and voucher decline as the CPUE of alien piscivorous fish increased within specimens were confirmed at the Oregon State University a river and among rivers. Museum of Ichthyology (Corvallis, Oregon). Fish collected were classified as young or adult, native prey, alien piscivore, METHODS or other (Table 1). Salmonids Oncorhynchus and Prosopium, chiselmouth Acrocheilus alutaceus, chub Gila, and peamouth Study Rivers Mylocheilus caurensis less than 100 mm in total length were classified as native prey; all sizes of bass Micropterus and yel- We sampled fish assemblages of seven large rivers during low perch Perca flavescens were considered alien predators. the summer low-flow periods of 2006–2008 when flows and We examined the data in two ways. In separate graphs for each temperatures are relatively stable and fish migrations mini- river, we plotted the CPUE of native prey and the CPUE of mal (Figure 1). We randomly selected 20 sites on each river so alien predators of each site against relative river distance (we that they were unequally dispersed but were not overlapping used relative distance to standardize the varying lengths of the (Stevens and Olsen 2004). The three rivers on the west side seven main stems sampled). This aided us in detecting preda- of the Cascade Mountains had largely forested catchments and tor–prey patterns in the seven rivers. In addition, we plotted

202 Fisheries • Vol 37 No 5• May 2012• www.fisheries.org Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:45 18 June 2012

Figure 1. Locations and spatially balanced random sampling design of seven study rivers in the Pacific Northwest. Solid bars are low-head dams or waterfalls.

Fisheries • Vol 37 No 5• May 2012 • www.fisheries.org 203 TABLE 1. Fish species collected from seven Pacific Northwest rivers. Scientific name Common name Trophic classification River occurrence Petromyzontidae Lampetra richardsoni Western brook lamprey y, a NP W Lampetra tridentata Pacific lamprey y NP C, J, U, W Lampetra sp. Unknown lamprey species y NP S Clupeidae Alosa sapidissima* American shad y O C, U, W Clupea pallassi Pacific herring y NP W Salmonidaea Oncorhynchus clarkii Cutthroat trout y, a NP C, W Oncorhynchus mykiss Rainbow trout y, a NP J, M, O, S, U, W Oncorhnchus tshawytscha Chinook salmon y NP C, O, W Prosopium williamsoni Mountain whitefish y, a NP C, O, W Salmo trutta* Brown trout a AP S Cyprinidaea Acrocheilus alutaceus Chiselmouth y, a NP J, M, O, W Ctenopharyngodon idella* Grass carp a O W Cyprinus carpio* Common carp a O J, M, O, W Gila bicolor Tui chub y, a NP S Gila coerula Blue chub y, a NP S Mylocheilus caurensis Peamouth y, a NP C, O, W Notemigonus chrysoleucus* Golden shiner a O U Pimephales promelas* Fathead minnow a O M, S Ptychocheilus oregonensis Northern pikeminnow ab O C, J, M, O, W Ptychocheilus umpquae Umpqua pikeminnow ab O U Rhinichthys cataractae Longnose dace y, a NP C, J, M, O, W Rhinichthys evermanni Umpqua dace y, a NP U Rhinichthys falcata Leopard dace y, a NP M, W Rhinichthys osculus Speckled dace y, a NP C, M, S, U, W Richardsonius balteatus Redside shiner y, a NP C, M, O, U, W Fundulidae Fundulus diaphanous* Banded killifish a O W Catostomidae Catostomus columbianus Bridgelip sucker a O J, M, O

Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:45 18 June 2012 Catostomus macrocheilus Largescale sucker a O C, J, M, O, W Catostomus platyrhynchus Mountain sucker y, a NP J, M, W Catostomus rimiculus Klamath smallscale sucker a O S Catostomus snyderi Klamath largescale sucker a O S Catostomus tsiltcoosensis Tyee sucker a O U Percopsidae Percopsis transmontana Sand roller y, a NP W Poeciliidae Gambusia affinis* Western mosquitofish a O M Ictaluridae Ameiurus melas* Black bullhead a AP J, M, O, W Ameiurus natalis* Yellow bullhead a AP O, U, W Ameiurus nebulosus* Brown bullhead a AP J, O, S, U Ictalurus punctatus* Channel catfish a AP J, M

204 Fisheries • Vol 37 No 5• May 2012• www.fisheries.org TABLE 1. (continued) Scientific name Common name Trophic classification River occurrence Noturus gyrinus* Tadpole madtom a O M Pylodictus oliverus* Flathead catfish a AP M Centrarchidae Ambloplites rupestris* Rock bass a AP C Lepomis gibbosus* Pumpkinseed y O C, M, O, S, U, W Lepomis macrocheilus* Bluegill y O C, O, U, W Micropterus dolomieu* Smallmouth bass y, a AP C, J, M, O, U, W Micropterus salmoides* Largemouth bass y, a AP C, M, O, S, U, W Pomoxis annularis* White crappie a AP M, O, W Pomoxis nigrum* Black crappie a AP U, W Gasterosteidae Gasterosteus aculeatus Three-spined stickleback y, a NP C Cottidae Cottus aleuticus Coastrange sculpin y, a NP U Cottus asper Prickly sculpin y NP C, O, U, W Cottus beldingi Paiute sculpin y, a NP W Cottus gulosus Riffle sculpin y, a NP C, W Cottus klamathensis Marbled sculpin y, a NP S Cottus perplexus Reticulate sculpin y, a NP O, U, W Cottus rhotheus Torrent sculpin y, a NP C, O, W Cottus tenuis Slender sculpin y, a NP S Percidae Perca flavescens* Yellow perch y, a AP C, M, O, S, U, W

* = alien; y = young; a = adult; NP = native prey; AP = alien predator; O = other. Rivers: C = Chehalis; J = John Day; M = Malheur; O = Okanogan; S = Sprague; U = Umpqua; W = Willamette.

aAdult Acrocheilus, Gila, Mylocheilus, and native salmonids classified as other. bNative piscivore.

the CPUE of native prey versus the CPUE of alien predators piscivore CPUE was low, native prey CPUE was higher than in a single graph so that we could assess the composite preda- the alien piscivore CPUE; however, at one site, the CPUE of tor–prey pattern of the seven rivers. In the latter graph, we used piscivores and prey were equivalent. Native prey were not col- 90th percentile quantile regression and a lognormal curve to lected from one or more sites in the Malheur, Willamette, John separate the predator–prey pattern from other measured fac- Day, Okanogan, and Umpqua rivers, but they simply may have tors (e.g., water body size, water quality, substrate, fish cover, been rare in those locations. Uncollected native prey species Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:45 18 June 2012 anthropogenic disturbance; Hughes et al. 2011) that may lim- that were expected based on their ranges and life histories (Scott it prey CPUE. Others have also used quantile regression for and Crossman 1973; Wydoski and Whitney 1979; Bond 1994; assessing the effects of suspected limiting factors on fish as- Rathert et al. 1999) varied from 1 (Sprague) to 10 (John Day; semblages (Terrell et al. 1996; Dunham et al. 2002; Mebane et Table 2). In each river the average proportion of sites where al. 2003; Bryce et al. 2010). listed native prey species were observed ranged from 20% to 66%, with the lowest average proportions in the John Day and RESULTS Okanogan rivers (Table 2).

The CPUEs of alien piscivores were low, and the CPUEs When alien predator CPUE was plotted against native prey of native prey were high at nearly all sites on the Chehalis, CPUE in a single plot, a decline in prey with increased preda- Malheur, Sprague, and Willamette rivers, although at two or tors is evident; however, the steepness of that decline is less more sites on each river increased alien piscivore CPUE was for the Sprague River than for the others (Figure 4). In no case associated with lowered native prey CPUE (Figure 2). On the is native prey CPUE high when alien predator CPUE is high John Day and Okanogan rivers, alien piscivore CPUE was (upper right quadrat of figure); however, there are many cases consistently greater than native prey CPUE at all or nearly all of low prey CPUE and low predator CPUE (lower left quad- sites (Figure 3). The pattern was intermediate on the Umpqua rat), indicating that additional environmental factors may limit River, where alien piscivore CPUE was greater than native prey populations at those sites. CPUE at 15 sites (Figure 3). At most Umpqua sites where alien

Fisheries • Vol 37 No 5• May 2012 • www.fisheries.org 205 Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:45 18 June 2012

Figure 2. Four rivers in which the catch per unit effort of native prey species almost always exceeded that of alien piscivorous species.

DISCUSSION Although we have no concrete evidence of local extinctions or extirpations, several native prey species whose reported Lomnicky et al. (2007) found aliens in 80% of the large ranges and life histories include our study rivers (Scott and river length in the Western United States and we found alien Crossman 1973; Wydoski and Whitney 1979; Bond 1994; piscivores in all seven of the large rivers we sampled and in the Rathert et al. 1999) were not collected from some of the riv- vast majority of our sample reaches (Figures 2–4). Like their ers (Table 2). Mountain whitefish Prosopium williamsoni was study, ours was a random sample, meaning that we can infer missing from all of our Malheur River collections, despite be- with confidence that alien piscivores are also present in 40% ing recorded there historically (LaVigne, Hughes, and Herlihy of the main-stem Chehalis, 55% of the main-stem Willamette 2008). In addition, the average proportions of sites with native and Malheur, 80% of the main-stem Sprague, and 100% of the prey species were one third to two thirds lower in the three riv- main-stem Umpqua, Okanogan, and John Day river lengths. ers (John Day, Okanogan, Umpqua) in which alien predator CPUE was markedly greater than native prey CPUE (Figure 3,

206 Fisheries • Vol 37 No 5• May 2012• www.fisheries.org Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:45 18 June 2012

Figure 3. Three rivers in which the catch per unit effort of alien piscivorous species almost always exceeded that of native prey species. Table 2). Hiram Li (Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Or- the same sampling designs and methods would aid trend detec- egon State University, personal communication) found redside tion. For example, LaVigne, Hughes, and Herlihy (2008) and shiner Richardsonius balteatus and speckled dace Rhinichthys LaVigne, Hughes, Wildman, et al. (2008) documented range osculus common throughout the John Day River Basin in the expansions of several alien species in the Malheur and Wil- mid-1980s, and Torgersen et al. (2006) reported that both spe- lamette rivers but indicated that the apparent expansions may cies were common in the middle and north forks of the John have resulted from more effective sampling designs and meth- Day River in 1996 and 1997, but they were missing from all ods. Decreased CPUE of native prey species is likely to depress of our 20 sites on the John Day main stem. Simon and Markle index of biological integrity (IBI) scores by reducing IBI metric (1999) reported that smallmouth bass displaced Umpqua chub scores that are based on species richness (Dolph et al. 2010; Oregonichthys kalawatseti from the main-stem Umpqua River. Wan et al. 2010). Thus, lower IBI scores may also serve as in- However, some of the other expected native prey species are dicators of biological pollution by alien piscivores (Whittier, naturally uncommon, making it difficult to assess their declines Hughes, Stoddard, et al. 2007; Oliviera et al. 2009). (Kanno et al. 2009). Repeated sampling of these rivers with

Fisheries • Vol 37 No 5• May 2012 • www.fisheries.org 207 TABLE 2. Proportion of sites in each river where the listed native prey species were observed. Proportions based only on species collected from main-stem rivers in this study. Mean prey occurrence for each river was calculated by adding the frequency of occurrence of all native prey species then dividing by the number of native prey species. Scientific name Chehalis John Day Malheur Okanogan Sprague Umpqua Willamette Petromyzontidae Lampetra richardsoni 0.05 Lampetra tridentata 0.45 0.15 E 0.7 0.15 Lampetra sp. 0.25 Clupeidae Clupea pallassi 0.05 Salmonidae Oncorhynchus clarkii 0.1 E 0.4 Oncorhynchus mykiss 0.1 0.15 0.05 0.85 0.35 0.45 Oncorhnchus tshawytscha 0.2 E 0.25 0.05 0.7 Prosopium williamsoni 0.5 E E 0.6 0.9 Cyprinidae Acrocheilus alutaceus E 0.2 0.95 0.15 0.85 Gila bicolor 1.0 Gila coerula 0.4 Mylocheilus caurensis 0.15 E E 0.05 0.7 Rhinichthys cataractae 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.2 0.7 Rhinichthys evermanni 0.75 Rhinichthys falcata E E 0.15 E 0.65 Rhinichthys osculus 0.85 E 0.85 E 0.95 0.35 0.8 Richardsonius balteatus 1.0 E 0.95 0.05 E 0.3 0.85 Catostomidae Catostomus platyrhynchus 0.05 0.55 E 0.8 Percopsidae Percopsis transmontana E E E 0.3

Gasterosteidae

Gasterosteus aculeatus 0.5 E E

Cottidae

Cottus aleuticus E 0.55

Cottus asper 0.9 E 0.2 0.15 0.85

Cottus beldingi E 0.6

Cottus gulosus 1.0 0.05 E Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:45 18 June 2012 Cottus klamathensis 0.95

Cottus perplexus E 0.35 0.5 0.9

Cottus rhotheus 0.85 E 0.3 0.8 Cottus tenuis 0.2

Number native prey species 12 5 7 10 7 10 19 Mean prey occurrence 0.60 0.25 0.63 0.22 0.66 0.38 0.60

E = expected but not found.

In short-term observational studies of natural ecosystems (2) Predation by alien predators is a well-established mecha- such as ours, it is difficult to attribute causation; instead, one nism for limiting or extirpating native prey fish (Miller et al. must take a weight-of-evidence approach and consider the 1989; Moyle and Light 1996; Cucherousset and Olden 2011), (1) strength of the association, (2) ecological mechanism, (3) and several expected prey species that we collected elsewhere measurement or sampling error, and (4) strength of alternative were not collected from other study rivers, despite our use of explanations. (1) The consistent declines in prey CPUE as- the same sampling methodologies. (3) Our survey design was sociated with increases in alien predator CPUE in this study unusually thorough: we electrofished nearly 50% of the main- suggest that alien predators limit native prey (Figures 2–4). stem length of each river, passed species richness asymptotes

208 Fisheries • Vol 37 No 5• May 2012• www.fisheries.org after sampling 12–16 sites, and collected 90% of the species collected from 20 sites in 2–11 of those sites, depending on the river being sampled (Hughes et al. 2011). Although CPUE is not a measure of true abundance, it is an established fishery in- dicator of relative abundance (Bonar et al. 2009). There is error in our 100-mm cutoff of designating prey for species that attain greater lengths, but that may result in an overestimate or underestimate of prey depending on the sizes of the predators present. (4) Alternative mechanisms for reducing native prey or increasing alien predators include differing effects on the two groups following changes in water quality and physical habitat structure. We found no consistent correlations between environmental variables and vertebrate species richness in previous studies on the same seven rivers (Hughes et al. 2011) or on a set of 45 reaches on 25 Oregon rivers (Hughes et al. 2002). Although most of the alien predators in this study are more tolerant than the native prey species of physical and chemical habitat degradation, not all of the prey species are intolerant and not Figure 4. Alien predator catch per unit effort versus native prey catch per unit effort for all seven all the predator species are tolerant of such rivers. degradation (Whittier, Hughes, Lomnicky, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (OR2008-4575), Wash- et al. 2007). ington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WA3424), and Oregon State University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee CONCLUSIONS (3430). The manuscript was written while R.M.H. was funded by grants from Fulbright Brasil, the Fundacao de Amparo a Pes- We conclude that alien piscivores are associated with sub- quisa do Estado de Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG 00011/09), and stantial alterations in the fish assemblages of two rivers (John the Companhia Energetica de Minas Gerais (CEMIG-Programa Day, Okanogan) and major portions of one other (Umpqua). Peixe Vivo). Fieldwork was conducted by Hank LaVigne, Jason Unlike the other study rivers, those three systems support abun- Adams, Tenzin Botsford, Ryan Emig, April Farmer, Bill Freese, dant and extensive populations of smallmouth bass. We suspect Cathy Gewecke, Laurel Genzoli, Elizabeth Hughes, and Scott that some previous failures to detect the effects of alien pisci- Wiedemer. Vertebrate voucher specimens were confirmed by vores on native prey (Oberdorff et al. 1998; Gido and Brown Doug Markle; Figure 1 was produced by Colleen Johnson. We Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:45 18 June 2012 1999; Rathert et al. 1999; Tejerina-Garro et al. 2005) were part- appreciate critical reviews of a draft manuscript by Hiram Li, ly the result of previously inadequate survey designs, sampling Paulo Pompeu, and three anonymous reviewers. methods, indicators, data analyses, and trend studies (Indepen- dent Multidisciplinary Science Team 2007). Our survey design, REFERENCES sampling protocol, and indicators—if implemented broadly through use of a rotating panel design—offer a cost-effective Baltz, D. M., and P. B. Moyle. 1993. Invasion resistance to introduced mechanism for assessing status and trends in fish assemblages species by a native assemblage of California stream fishes. Eco- and physical and chemical habitat of main-stem rivers across logical Applications 3:246–255. Bonar, S. A., W. A. Hubert, and D. W. Willis. 2009. Standard methods the regions and basins being managed. for sampling North American freshwater fishes. American Fisher- ies Society, Bethesda, Maryland. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Bond, C. E. 1994. Keys to Oregon freshwater fishes. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon. This research was funded by grants to Oregon State Universi- Bryce, S. A., G. A. Lomnicky, and P. R. Kaufmann. 2010. Protecting ty from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (RM832827), sediment-sensitive aquatic species in mountain streams through National Marine Fisheries Service (AB133FO8SE3579), and the application of biologically based streambed sediment criteria. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (81450-7-J528). Vertebrates Journal of the North American Benthological Society 29:657– were collected under permits from the National Marine Fisher- 672. ies Service (1559), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (TE141832),

Fisheries • Vol 37 No 5• May 2012 • www.fisheries.org 209 CEN (Comité Européen de Normalisation). 2003. Water quality: sam- Jahns, N., and B. Nass. 2010. Literature based assessment of predation pling of fish with electricity. Comité Européen de Normalisation, by smallmouth bass on juvenile salmon in the Okanogan River, European Standard EN 14011:2003 E, Brussels, Belgium. WA. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Omak, Cucherousset, J., and J. D. Olden. 2011. Ecological impacts of non- Washington. native freshwater fishes. Fisheries 36:215–230. Johnson, B. M., P. J. Martinez, J. A. Hawkins, and K. R. Bestgen. Dextrase, A. J., and N. E. Mandrak. 2006. Impacts of alien invasive 2008. Ranking predatory threats by nonnative fishes in the Yam- species on freshwater fauna at risk in Canada. Biological Inva- pa River, Colorado, via bioenergetics modeling. North American sions 8:13–24. Journal of Fisheries Management 28:1941–1953. Dolph, C. L., A. Y. Sheshukov, C. J. Chizinski, B. Vondracek, and B. Kanno, Y., J. C. Vokoun, D. C. Dauwalter, R. M. Hughes, A. T. Wilson. 2010. The index of biological integrity and the bootstrap: Herlihy, T. R. Maret, and T. M. Patton. 2009. Influence of rare can random sampling error affect stream impairment decisions? species on electrofishing distance–species richness relationships Ecological Indicators 10:527–537. at stream sites. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society Dunham, J. B., B. S. Cade, and J. W. Terrell. 2002. Influences of spa- 138:1240–1251. tial and temporal variation on fish–habitat relationships defined Lassuy, D. R. 1995. Introduced species as a factor in extinction and by regression quantiles. Transactions of the American Fisheries endangerment of native fish species. American Fisheries Society Society 131:86–98. Symposium 15:391–396. Fritts, A. L., and T. N. Pearsons. 2004. Smallmouth bass predation on LaVigne, H. R., R. M. Hughes, and A. T. Herlihy. 2008. Bioassessments hatchery and wild salmonids in the Yakima River, Washington. to detect changes in Pacific Northwest river fish assemblages: a Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 133:880–895. Malheur River case study. Northwest Science 82:251–258. ———. 2006. Effects of predation by nonnative smallmouth bass on LaVigne, H. R., R. M. Hughes, R. C. Wildman, S. V. Gregory, and A. native salmonid prey: the role of predator and prey size. Transac- T. Herlihy. 2008. Summer distribution and diversity of non-native tions of the American Fisheries Society 135:853–860. fishes in the main-stem Willamette River, Oregon, 1944–2006. ———. 2008. Can non-native smallmouth bass, Micropterus dolo- Northwest Science 82:83–93. mieu, be swamped by hatchery fish releases to increase juvenile Leprieur, F., O. Beauchard, S. Blanchet, T. Oberdorff, and S. Brosse. Chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, survival? Environ- 2008. Fish invasions in the world’s river systems: when natural mental Biology of Fishes 83:485–494. processes are blurred by human activities. PLoS Biology 6(2):e28. Gido, K. B., and J. H. Brown. 1999. Invasion of North American drain- Lomnicky, G. A., T. R. Whittier, R. M. Hughes, and D. V. Peck. 2007. ages by alien fish species. Freshwater Biology 42:387–399. Distribution of nonnative aquatic vertebrates in western U.S. Hughes, R. M., and A. T. Herlihy. 2007. Electrofishing distance needed streams and rivers. North American Journal of Fisheries Manage- to estimate consistent IBI scores in raftable Oregon rivers. Trans- ment 27(4):1082–1093. actions of the American Fisheries Society 136:135–141. Meador, M. R., T. F. Cuffney, and M. E. Gurtz. 1993. Methods for Hughes, R. M., A. T. Herlihy, W. J. Gerth, and Y. Pan. 2011. Estimating sampling fish communities as part of the National Water Quality vertebrate, benthic macroinvertebrate and diatom taxa richness Assessment Program. U.S. Geological Survey, Open-file Report in raftable Pacific Northwest rivers for bioassessment purposes. 93-408, Raleigh, North Carolina. Environmental Monitoring & Assessment. DOI: 10.1007/s10661- Mebane, C. A., T. R. Maret, and R. M. Hughes. 2003. An index of bio- 011-2181-9 logical integrity (IBI) for Pacific Northwest rivers. Transactions Hughes, R. M., P. R. Kaufmann, A. T. Herlihy, S. S. Intelmann, S. of the American Fisheries Society 132:239–261. C. Corbett, M. C. Arbogast, and R. C. Hjort. 2002. Electrofish- Miller, R. R., J. D. Williams, and J. E. Williams. 1989. Extinctions ing distance needed to estimate fish species richness in raftable of North American fishes during the past century. Fisheries Oregon rivers. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 14(6):22–38. 22:1229–1240. Moyle, P. B., and T. Light. 1996. Biological invasions of freshwater: Hughes, R. M., and F. H. McCormick. In Press. Aquatic vertebrates. empirical rules and assembly theory. Biological Conservation Pages 189–208 in D. V. Peck, D. K. Averill, A. T. Herlihy, B. H. 78:149–161. Hill, R. M. Hughes, P. R. Kaufmann, D. J. Klemm, J. M. Lazor- Oberdorff, T., B. Hugueny, A. Compin, and D. Belkessam. 1998.

Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:45 18 June 2012 chak, F. H. McCormick, S. A. Peterson, P. L. Ringold, M. R. Noninteractive fish communities in the coastal streams of north- Cappaert, T. Magee, and P. A. Monaco, editors. Environmental western France. Journal of Animal Ecology 67:472–484. Monitoring and Assessment Program: Surface Waters Western Oliveira, J. M., R. M. Hughes, M. T. Ferreira, A. Teixeira, P. Morgado, Pilot Study—field operations manual for nonwadeable rivers and R. M. Cortes, and J. H. Bochechas. 2009. A preliminary fishery streams. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, quality index for Portuguese streams. North American Journal of D.C. Fisheries Management 29:1466–1478. Hughes, R. M., and D. V. Peck. 2008. Acquiring data for large aquatic Rathert, D., D. White, J. C. Sifneos, and R. M. Hughes. 1999. Environ- resource surveys: the art of compromise among science, logistics, mental correlates of species richness for native freshwater fish in and reality. Journal of the North American Benthological Society Oregon, USA. Journal of Biogeography 26:257–273. 27:837–859. Reed, K. M., and B. Czech. 2005. Causes of fish endangerment in the Hughes, R. M., J. N. Rinne, and B. Calamusso. 2005. Historical chang- United States, or the structure of the American economy. Fisher- es in large-river fish assemblages of the Americas: a synthesis. ies 30(7):36–38. Pages 603–612 in J. N. Rinne, R. M. Hughes, and B. Calamusso, Rose, C. A. 2005. Economic growth as a threat to fish conservation in editors. Historical changes in large-river fish assemblages of the Canada. Fisheries 30(8):36–38. Americas. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 45, Bethesda, Ross, S. T. 1991. Mechanisms structuring stream fish assemblages: are Maryland. there lessons from introduced species? Environmental Biology of Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team. 2007. Considerations Fishes 30:359–368. for the use of ecological indicators in restoration effectiveness Sanderson, B. L., K. A. Barnas, and M. W. Rub. 2009. Nonindigenous evaluation. Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, IMST Tech- species of the Pacific Northwest: an overlooked risk to endan- nical Report 2007-1, Salem, Oregon. gered salmon? BioScience 59:245–256.

210 Fisheries • Vol 37 No 5• May 2012• www.fisheries.org Scott, W. B., and E. J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Bulletin 184, Ottawa, On- tario. Shrader, T., and M. E. Gray. 1999. Biology and management of John Day River smallmouth bass. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Information Report 99-1, Portland, Oregon. Simon, D. C., and D. F. Markle. 1999. Evidence of a relationship between smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomeiu) and decline of Umpqua chub (Oregonichthys kalawatseti) in the Umpqua Basin, Oregon. Northwestern Naturalist 80:110–113. Stevens, D. L., and A. R. Olsen. 2004. Spatially balanced sampling of natural resources. Journal of the American Statistical Association 99:262–278. Tejerina-Garro, F. L., M. Maldonado, C. Ibañez, D. Pont, N. Roset, and T. Oberdorff. 2005. Effects of natural and anthropogenic environmental changes on riverine fish assemblages: a framework for ecological assessment of rivers. Brazilian Archives of Biology and Technology 48:91–108. Terrell, J. W., B. S. Cade, J. Carpenter, and J. M. Thompson. 1996. Modeling stream fish habitat limitations from wedge-shaped patterns of variation in standing stock. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 125:104–117. Torgersen, C. E., C. V. Baxter, H. W. Li, and B. A. McIntosh. 2006. Landscape influences on longitudinal patterns of river fishes: spatially continuous analysis of fish–habitat relationships. Pages 473–492 in R. M. Hughes, L. Wang, and P. W. Seelbach, editors. Landscape influences on stream habitats and biological assemblages. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 48, Bethesda, Maryland. Wan, H., C. J. Chizinski, C. L. Dolph, B. Vondracek, and B. N. Wilson. 2010. The impact of rare taxa on a fish index of biotic integrity. Ecological Indicators 10:781–788. Whittier, T. R., R. M. Hughes, G. A. Lomnicky, and D. V. Peck. 2007. Fish and amphibian tolerance values and an assemblage tolerance index for streams and rivers in the Western USA. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 136:254–271. Whittier, T. R., R. M. Hughes, J. L. Stoddard, G. A. Lomnicky, D. V. Peck, and A. T. Herlihy. 2007. A structured approach to developing indices of biotic integrity: three examples from Western USA streams and rivers. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 136:718–735. Wydoski, R. S., and R. R. Whitney. 1979. Inland fishes of Washington. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:45 18 June 2012 From the Archives Sport fishing in India is practiced only by the privileged class. To quote Radcliffe, “the angler, pure and simple for the mere love of sport is hardly represented in the people of India.” The best known fresh-water sport fish in India is the mahaseer which experienced anglers believe af- fords more sport than the salmon. The fish is tough to land and weighs on an average between 80 and 100 pounds.

H. D. R. Iyengar, p. 93, Seventy-Eighth Annual Meeting, Transaction of The American Fisheries Society

Fisheries • Vol 37 No 5• May 2012 • www.fisheries.org 211 FEATURE Habitat Assessment of Freshwater Fish Assemblages and Their Habitats in the National Park Service System of the Southeastern United States Evaluación de las taxocenósis de peces James M. Long de agua dulce y de sus hábitats en el U.S. Geological Survey, Oklahoma Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Re- search Unit, Department of Natural Resource Ecology and Management, Sistema del Servicios de Parques Nacio- Oklahoma State University, 404 Life Sciences West, Stillwater, Oklahoma nales en el sureste de los Estados Unidos 74078. E-mail: [email protected] de Norteamérica Nathan P. Nibbelink RESUMEN: la región sureste de los Estados Unidos de Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, The University of Norteamérica alberga la más alta diversidad de peces de Georgia, 180 E. Green Street, Athens, Georgia 30602 agua dulce en el país: aproximadamente 662 especies. Las áreas protegidas existentes, como las unidades del Ser- Kevin T. McAbee vicio de Parques Nacionales (SPN), debieran reflejar tal U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Ecological Services Field Office, diversidad, sin embargo hasta el momento no existe una 2369 West Orton Circle, Suite 50, Salt Lake City, Utah 84119 evaluación de gran escala. En la presente contribución se compilan diversas bases de datos para identificar la dis- Julie W. Stahli tribución de los peces nativos dulceacuícolas en las áreas Metro Wastewater Reclamation District, 6450 York Street, Denver, del SNP y en sus alrededores, así como también las amena- Colorado 80229 zas que enfrentan dichos recursos. El estudio se concentró en 26 unidades del SNP que contienen sólo peces de agua ABSTRACT: The southeast region of the United States con- dulce, documentando la existencia de 288 especies dentro tains the highest diversity of freshwater fish species in the de éstas. Las unidades más grandes del SNP tendieron country: approximately 662 species. Existing protected areas a presentar la mayor cantidad de especies de peces y de like units of the National Park Service (NPS) should reflect this hábitat acuático, pero también presentaron las mayores biodiversity, but there has been no broad-scale assessment. We alteraciones. Las crecientes tasas de urbanización, la re- compiled several data sets identifying native freshwater fish ducción del porcentaje de tierra cultivada y el incremento species distributions in and surrounding NPS units and threats en la densidad de drenajes para caminos rurales, resul- to those resources. Focusing on the 26 NPS units contain- taron ser buenos predictores de la presencia de especies ing only freshwater fish species, we documented 288 species foráneas dentro de los límites de las unidades. Estos re- within NPS boundaries. The largest NPS units tended to have sultados son útiles no sólo para documentar el papel que the most fish species and aquatic habitat but also the greatest juegan las unidades del SNP en cuanto a la conservación amount of alteration. Increasing rates of urbanization, declines de la diversidad íctica de agua dulce sino que también, en in percentage agriculture land cover, and increased density of esta región, para sugerir medidas tendientes a controlar Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:45 18 June 2012 road–stream crossings in surrounding watersheds were good la urbanización en los cuerpos de agua adyacentes a las predictors of nonindigenous species presence within NPS unit unidades que pudieran afectar la diversidad de peces dul- boundaries. These results help document the role of NPS units ceacuícolas al interior de las mismas. in conserving freshwater fish diversity and, in this region, suggest that measures aimed at controlling urbanization in the adjacent watersheds could affect the diversity of freshwater fish communities in these units. documented in Guilford Courthouse National Military Park, a 93-ha NPS unit in North Carolina (Long 2010), is just slightly The Southeastern United States contains approximately less than the 18 species found in the much larger Yellowstone two thirds of the freshwater fish biodiversity found in North National Park. America (Warren et al. 2000). Although most aquatic habitats are privately owned in the Southeast, a relatively small fraction Each NPS unit is mandated to “conserve … the wild life is in federal lands belonging to agencies such as the National therein … by such means as will leave them unimpaired for … Park Service (NPS). Although NPS lands in the Southeast are future generations” (16 U.S. Code Title 16). Because human relatively small compared to parks and other federal lands in impacts on Southeastern aquatic ecosystems are threatening the the Western United States (U.S. Department of the Interior persistence of many native fish in the region (Warren et al. 1997, 2009), small Southeastern NPS units can protect disproportion- 2000), NPS-managed lands may represent important protected ate fish diversity. For example, the 14 species of freshwater fish areas that ensure conservation of native biodiversity within the

212 Fisheries • Vol 37 No 5• May 2012• www.fisheries.org region. However, data on fish assemblages have not been his- surrounding watersheds. Further, we identified major human torically available for most NPS units, precluding evaluation impacts that may pose a threat to aquatic resource integrity of their potential conservation contribution. Even though NPS within these NPS units and developed a threat index to deter- units have a common focus of preserving resources for future mine the relative magnitude of those threats to these resources. generations (NPS 2006), each unit is established independently Indices of human impact or threat to aquatic resources have by acts of Congress with its own unique language, purpose, and been useful as crude measures of aquatic condition, allowing a designation in its enabling legislation. Consequently, manage- prioritization of efforts for finer-scale investigation into aquatic ment of aquatic resources within parks depends on the strength health (Sowa et al. 2007; Paukert et al. 2011). We conducted of that commitment to the purpose for establishment. Thus, this assessment to examine how these extant protected lands fishery resources were often not the focus of management reflected fish species diversity, identify research opportunities actions in most NPS units because few were created to specifi- and gaps in knowledge, and identify regional issues affecting cally conserve fish. fish assemblages in NPS units.

With the creation of the NPS Inventory and Monitoring METHODS (I&M) Program in 1999 (NPS 2008), the freshwater fish assemblages within most NPS units have been compiled, enabling We compiled data on freshwater fish species, habitats, region-wide assessments and comparisons. In conjunction and potential threats in NPS units and their surrounding wa- with additional existing databases, it is possible to compare tersheds in the NPS Southeast Region. We obtained NPS unit fish assemblages within NPS boundaries to those outside NPS boundaries from the NPS Southeast Region Geographic Infor- boundaries. Furthermore, outside threats to fish assemblages mation Systems (GIS) coordinator and coupled that with data within NPS boundaries, such as land use change, can be tabu- on fish diversity, fish habitat, alterations to fish habitat, land lated. use change, and human population growth in NPS units and the surrounding watershed(s) in a GIS. Watersheds were based Alterations to freshwater fish habitat come in many forms, on the eight-digit hydrologic unit code (HUC) boundaries from such as direct loss (inundation of stream habitat from dam the National Hydrography Dataset (U.S. Geological Survey construction), changes in water quality (pollution and run- [USGS] 2007b) and we retained only those watersheds that in- off), and ecological stressors (nonnative species). Man-made tersected with NPS units. impoundments (or dams) affect aquatic habitat by replacing stream habitat with lacustrine habitat and altering downstream Fish Diversity channel morphology, flow regime, sediment deposition, and water temperature (Humborg et al. 1997; Nilsson et al. 2005). We obtained fish assemblage data from the NPS database Additionally, many impoundments act as barriers to fish move- of species occurrences (NPSpecies; NPS 2009 ) for the 26 non- ment (Kruk and Penczak 2003; Nilsson et al. 2005) and serve coastal NPS units in the Southeastern United States that contain as vectors for introductions of nonindigenous species (John- data on fish assemblages (Nibbelink et al. 2009). We used those son et al. 2008). Proximity to roads increases the potential for species listed as “present” in the NPSpecies database and rec- water quality impairment (Trombulak and Frissell 2000), and onciled differences in scientific names among NPS units to improper culvert or bridge construction can produce impass- produce a data set with consistent nomenclature that is compat- able stream gradients at these intersections (Warren and Pardew ible with other data sets. We followed Nelson et al. (2004) and 1998). Nonindigenous fish species are often a biological threat subsequent taxonomic revisions cited herein (Neely et al. 2007; to native fish communities and can force native fish out of their Powers and Mayden 2007; Blanton and Jenkins 2008; Blanton Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:45 18 June 2012 preferred habitat (Canonico et al. 2005; Leprieur et al. 2008). and Schuster 2008). Names of undescribed imperiled species Aquatic resources are affected by surrounding land use and follow Appendix 1 of Jelks et al. (2008) and names of exotic cover because natural land cover regulates inputs of storm wa- fishes foreign to this continent use names in the USGS Nonin- ter, sediments, and pollution (Schoonover et al. 2006). Human digenous Aquatic Species (NAS) Database (USGS 2007c). We populations place demand on aquatic resources through such only included the NPS data sets for freshwater fishes (sensu pressures as municipal water usage (Postel et al. 1996), and Nelson et al. 2004) and habitat associations listed in subsequent human activity is positively related to the number of nonindig- taxonomic revisions of freshwater taxa. Thus, all fish taxa treat- enous species (Leprieur et al. 2008). ed herein are obligate freshwater fishes (Tables 1 and 2, Figure 1, Appendix). Numerous databases exist that summarize native freshwater fish diversity as well as their habitats (i.e., streams) and To identify species of concern, we cross-referenced species threats (e.g., dams, land use, nonindigenous species) across the with those listed as protected by the Endangered Species Act Southeastern region. Although other federal lands in the region (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2008) or listed as “imperiled” act as protected areas for freshwater fish, we were aware of (endangered, threatened, vulnerable, extinct, possibly extinct, none that had the overarching and recent compilation of spe- or extirpated in nature) by the American Fisheries Society’s En- cies data that is found with NPS. Therefore, our purpose in this dangered Species Committee (Jelks et al. 2008). To compare assessment was to use existing data to describe the freshwa- native species found within NPS units to the surrounding water fish community in Southeastern NPS units relative to their tershed, we downloaded data from NatureServe’s “Distribution

Fisheries • Vol 37 No 5• May 2012 • www.fisheries.org 213 TABLE 1. Name and acronym of National Park Service (NPS) units in the Although aquatic habitat types can vary greatly and provide Southeastern United States with freshwater fish resources. appropriate habitat for different fish species, analyzing habitat NPS Unit Name NPS unit types or quality at this level was beyond the scope of our analy- acronym sis. We calculated the total area of the surrounding watersheds Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National Historic Site ABLI and the length (kilometers) of streams in both the watershed(s) Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area BISO and within the NPS unit boundary. Blue Ridge Parkway BLRI Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site CARL Alterations to Stream Habitat Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area CHAT Alterations to fish habitat come from a variety of sources Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park CHCH and we used several broad-scale existing data sets to compute Congaree National Park CONG these alterations. Though not exhaustive, they provide a solid Cowpens National Battlefield COWP starting point for understanding the relative threats to aquatic Cumberland Gap National Historical Park CUGA resources across the Southeastern United States. For man-made Fort Donelson National Military Park FODO impoundments, we summarized the number of dams and quan- Great Smoky Mountains National Park GRSM tity of water stored in the surrounding watersheds using the National Inventory of Dams (NID) dataset (U.S. Army Corps Guilford Courthouse National Military Park GUCO of Engineers 2005). We calculated the total road–stream inter- Horseshoe Bend National Military Park HOBE sections in the surrounding watershed using stream segments Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park KEMO from the National Hydrography Dataset (1:24,000 scale; USGS Kings Mountain National Military Park KIMO 2007b) and roads from the Environmental Systems Research Little River Canyon National Preserve LIRI Institute StreetMap USA data (ESRI 2007). We used lists of Mammoth Cave National Park MACA impaired streams (303(d) designation under the Clean Water Moores Creek National Battlefield MOCR Act (2002)) and calculated total kilometers in each watershed surrounding NPS units. Natchez Trace Parkway NATR Ninety Six National Historic Site NISI Land Use and Population Growth Obed Wild & Scenic River OBED Ocmulgee National Monument OCMU To classify land use within the watersheds surrounding Russell Cave National Monument RUCA NPS units, we used the USGS Land Cover Institute’s land cover Shiloh National Military Park SHIL data sets for 1992 and 2001 (30-m cell size; USGS 2007a). The Stones River National Battlefield STRI USGS used two different classification systems in 1992 and 2001. To directly compare the two, we used the Anderson Level Vicksburg National Military Park VICK 1 classification codes provided for both data sets (Anderson et al. 1976; USGS 2008), identified three classes of land use affecting fish habitat (urbanization, agriculture, and forest cover), of Native Fish by Watershed” tool (NatureServe 2004) for each calculated the change between the two years, and then sum- of the eight-digit HUC boundaries that intersected with the 26 marized them for each of the watersheds surrounding the NPS NPS units. To determine nonindigenous species, we obtained units. Percentage forest in the watershed was not considered a data from the USGS NAS program (USGS 2007c) on nonin- threat affecting fish habitat, although its loss and replacement Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:45 18 June 2012 digenous fish occurrences in the eight-digit HUC watersheds by other cover types was; therefore, we did not consider the surrounding the NPS units. Nonindigenous species include amount of forest cover in our threat assessment but only the those that are exotic (not native to North America) and non- change in forest cover between the two years. native (not native to the eight-digit HUC watershed). Native species in the watershed consisted of those included in the To demonstrate added pressure placed on aquatic resourc- NatureServe database, whereas native species in the NPS unit es by increases in human population density, we calculated the consisted of those included in the NPSpecies database minus total population density (number per square kilometer) of all the species listed on the NAS database from USGS. Except counties intersecting each NPS unit for 1990 and 1999 (ESRI for the NPSpecies database, where obvious inconsistencies 2006). Census data stratified by watershed boundaries were not required correction, all other databases were used “as is” and available, so the use of county data allowed us to focus on ar- unverified. eas directly surrounding the NPS units. We then calculated the difference between population density in 1999 and 1990 as a Stream Habitat measure of human population growth and summarized across all counties intersecting each NPS unit. For the purposes of our analysis, we considered stream habitats and obtained eight-digit HUC data from the National In order to provide a summary of relative threats to freshwater Hydrography Dataset (USGS 2007b) and retained those wa- resources across all NPS units, we rescaled each of the mea- tersheds that intersected with the 26 freshwater NPS units. sures of human impacts in the surrounding watershed(s) to a 0

214 Fisheries • Vol 37 No 5• May 2012• www.fisheries.org TABLE 2. National Park Service units in the Southeastern United States with freshwater (FW) fish comprising 100% of total fish species occurring within their boundaries and the number of FW native and nonindigenous in the surrounding watershed. Numbers in parentheses are the number of threatened and endangered (T&E), Imperiled (Im), exotic (Ex), and nonnative (NN) species.

NPS unit acronym Number of FW fish species (T&E,a Im,b Number of native FW fish Number of Ex and NN FW Percentage of species in NPS Ex,c NNd) species in surrounding fish species in surrounding unit compared to surrounding watershed watershed watershed ABLI 10 (0, 0, 0, 0) 119 8 8 BISO 77 (2, 8, 1, 3) 87 2 87 BLRI 83 (0, 1, 2, 32) 183 73 32 CARL 15 (0, 1, 1, 1) 80 10 17 CHAT 41 (0, 2, 5, 3) 36 13 84 CHCH 19 (0, 0, 0, 1) 102 17 16 CONG 60 (0, 4, 1, 1) 61 2 95 COWP 7 (0, 0, 0, 0) 53 25 9 CUGA 25 (1, 1, 0, 4) 99 25 20 FODO 13 (0, 0, 0, 1) 122 11 10 GRSM 71 (4, 11, 3, 5) 128 18 49 GUCO 14 (0, 1, 0, 0) 59 7 21 HOBE 9 (0, 0, 1, 0) 77 9 10 KEMO 11 (0, 0, 0, 1) 102 23 9 KIMO 19 (0, 2, 0, 1) 53 25 24 LIRI 36 (1, 1, 0, 1) 68 11 46 MACA 79 (0, 6, 2, 4) 110 10 66 MOCR 12 (0, 1, 0, 0) 55 1 21 NATR 103 (1, 3, 0, 2) 228 22 41 NISI 22 (0, 2, 0, 0) 64 2 33 OBED 50 (1, 4, 0, 3) 64 6 71 OCMU 31 (0, 1, 1, 3) 50 14 48 RUCA 3 (0, 0, 0, 0) 78 11 3 SHIL 51 (0, 0, 0, 0) 121 1 42 STRI 46 (0, 0, 0, 0) 72 3 61

VICK 18 (0, 0, 0, 0) 89 7 19

aFederally listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. bImperiled (endangered, threatened, vulnerable, extinct, possibly extinct, or extirpated in nature) as determined by the American Fisheries Society’s Endangered Species Committee and reported by Jelks et al. (2008). cExotic (not native to United States) as listed on the U.S. Geological Survey website of Nonindigenous Aquatic Species (USGS 2007c). dNonnative to at least one of the surrounding watershed(s) of the NPS unit as listed on the U.S. Geological Survey website of Nonindigenous Aquatic Species (USGS 2007c). Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:45 18 June 2012 to 1 scale, where no impact = 0, and 1 was determined by the Factors Influencing Nonindigenous Species watershed with the largest value for a particular impact. The Composition impact was always positive (e.g., the greatest loss of forest cover = 1), such that the highest value always indicated a greater We evaluated how human disturbance in the surrounding alteration. Using road–stream intersections as an example, the watershed was related to percentage nonindigenous fish spe-

formula is rdstrmnew = rdstrmraw/rdstrmmax, where rdstrmraw is the cies composition in these NPS units using linear regression number of road–stream intersections in the watershed(s) of a and an information–theoretic approach (Burnam and Anderson

given NPS unit, rdstrmmax is the largest value among all NPS 2002). Variables considered were both percentage cover and

units, and therefore rdstrmnew is the rescaled value. percentage change (1992–2001) in urban (%urb, Δ%urb) and agriculture (%ag, Δ%ag), percentage change in forest (Δ%for), Rescaling enabled a relative view of the magnitude of each population density (popdens) and change in human population impact across all units. Summing the rescaled values over all of from 1990–2000 (Δpop), percentage of stream kilometers des- the measures of human impacts gives an overall index of threat ignated as 303(d) streams (%303d), dams per kilometer (dams), for each NPS unit. and road/stream crossings per kilometer (xings). In addition, to account for differences in stream kilometers across units, we included total kilometers of streams in the watershed (stmkm). To avoid multicollinearity, only predictor variables with a Pear-

Fisheries • Vol 37 No 5• May 2012 • www.fisheries.org 215 RESULTS Fish Diversity

National Park Service units in the Southeastern United States collectively contained a rich freshwater fish fauna representing 288 species (Table 2, Appendix), which is about 43% of the 662 native fish species known in the region (Warren et al. 2000). In accord with disparity in NPS unit size and location, there was large variation in fish diversity among, units with Russell Cave National Monument having the fewest species (N = 3) and Natchez Trace Parkway having the most (N = 103). Eight species found in six NPS units were listed under the Endangered Species Act and 31 species found in 16 NPS units were imperiled according to the criteria of Jelks et al. (2008).

There was also a great deal of variation in number of native (from 36 to 226) and nonindigenous (from 1 to 73) freshwater species in the watersheds surrounding these NPS units (Table 2). The number of total species in an NPS unit compared to its surrounding watershed was greatest for Congaree National Park (95%) and lowest for Russell Cave National Monument Figure 1. Map of 26 National Park Service (NPS) units and their surround- (3%). On average, NPS units comprised nearly 38% of the ing watersheds in the Southeastern United States that were assessed for native species composition of the surrounding watershed(s), freshwater fish diversity, freshwater aquatic habitat, and threats to those despite representing only an average of 3.5% of the total stream resources (nonindigenous fish species, alterations to water quality, and land use and population change). Acronyms of NPS units are found in kilometers of those watersheds (Figure 2). Table 1. Nine NPS units contained no nonindigenous species, son’s correlation coefficient of less than 0.49 were included whereas the remaining NPS units averaged 11% nonindigenous (Moore and McCabe 1993). As a result, dams, popdens, and fish fauna composition (Table 2, Appendix). The NPS units Δpop were excluded due to correlations exceeding 0.49 with with the greatest number of nonindigenous species included other variables. To further reduce the candidate set of variables, Blue Ridge Parkway (approximately 41%) and Chattahoochee we removed variables having a nonsignificant Pearson’s -cor River National Recreation Area (CHAT; 20%). relation with the response variable. This resulted in a set of four variables for consideration in the models: Δ%urb, %ag, xings, Stream Habitat and stmkm. The candidate set of models included all combinations of one-, two-, three-, and four-variable models in addition As with fish diversity, the amount of stream habitat varied to the full model. To allow for easier interpretation of the can- greatly among NPS units (Table 3). Great Smoky Mountains National Park covered the most area and had the greatest overall didate model set, Akaike weights (wi; 0–1) were calculated to determine the weight of evidence for each model within the length of streams, over 3,500 km. Abraham Lincoln Birthplace Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:45 18 June 2012 candidate set (Thompson and Lee 2000; Burnham and An- National Historic Site was the smallest NPS unit and contained derson 2002). To incorporate model selection uncertainty, we zero kilometers of stream habitat. However, the two parkways, computed model-averaged parameter estimates. Parameters Natchez Trace and Blue Ridge Parkways, had the most in- were averaged across any model containing that parameter as tersecting watersheds (15 and 11, respectively) and, thus, the described by Burnham and Anderson (2002, p. 152). Confi- greatest amount of watershed area and length of streams in the dence intervals were calculated as ±1.64 × Standard Error (SE), surrounding watersheds. where the SE is calculated from the unconditional variance as described by Burnham and Anderson (2002, p. 162, equation Alterations to Stream Habitat 4.9). The two parkway units (Blue Ridge Parkway [BLRI] and Natchez Trace Parkway [NATR]) were excluded because they All NPS units had some alterations to their surrounding represented extreme outliers, intersecting many more water- watershed. The watersheds surrounding the two parkways, Nat- sheds than the 1–3 that intersected most other NPS units. chez Trace and Blue Ridge Parkways, had the greatest number of alterations to stream habitat, including number of dams, quantity of water stored behind dams, number of road–stream crossings, and kilometers of streams listed on the 303(d) list (Table 4). However, these were also the units with the greatest number of intersecting watersheds.

216 Fisheries • Vol 37 No 5• May 2012• www.fisheries.org Land Use and Population Growth

Urbanized landscapes averaged 10.8% for the watersheds surrounding these NPS units in the region in 2001, an increase from 6.1% in 1992 (Table 5). Guilford Courthouse National Military Park (Greensboro, North Carolina) resided in the most urbanized watershed (62.7%), and the largest increases were observed for CHAT, Ocmulgee National Monument, and Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park, all three near the Atlanta metropolitan area. Increases in urbanization were concomitant with decreases in forest cover, except for Fort Do- nelson National Military Park, where percentage forest cover increased. Increases in urbanization also paralleled human population density, except at Cumberland Gap National Historical Park, where human population density declined.

Using our threat index, CHAT, in the large and rapidly growing Atlanta metropolitan area, ranked the highest in terms of cumulative human impacts in surrounding watersheds (Fig- ures 3 and 4). Twelve units had at least one metric in the highest quartile, whereas no unit had more than three metrics in the highest quartile. Reduction of forest cover was the greatest relative impact, exceeding the highest quartile at seven NPS units.

Factors Influencing Nonindigenous Species Composition

The model selection exercise resulted in a three-variable model with the most support based on model weights (Table 6). However, because several models had an Akaike information criterion (AIC) weight within 10% of the weight of the top model, we generated model-averaged parameter estimates and standard errors (Table 7). Change in percentage urban area (Δ%urb) had a coefficient of 0.86, indicating that for every 10% Figure 2. Percentage of stream kilometers in National Park Service (NPS) increase in the urban area percentage change, a NPS unit could unit relative to surrounding watersheds (left) and percentage of native expect an approximate 8.6% increase in percentage nonindig- fish species in NPS unit relative to surrounding watersheds (right) in the enous species. Percentage agriculture (%ag) had a coefficient Southeastern United States. Acronyms of NPS units are found in Table 1. of −0.35, indicating that for every 10% decrease in agriculture, an NPS unit would be expected to have about a 3.5% increase bances, and (3) combined rates of urbanization, percentage of in percentage nonindigenous species composition; and finally, watershed in agriculture, and density of road–stream crossings Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:45 18 June 2012 road–stream crossings per kilometer of stream had a coefficient in surrounding watersheds are related to nonindigenous species of 9.17, indicating that for every one additional stream cross- presence within NPS unit boundaries. ing per kilomter, there was about a 9.2% increase in percentage nonindigenous species composition in the NPS unit. Total These results spatially demonstrate the variety of issues stream length (strmkm) was included in the final model; how- affecting NPS units and the fish assemblages within their bound- ever, it was largely uninterpretable due to a parameter estimate aries. For NPS units in the Southeastern United States, issues near zero and low importance value (Table 7). associated with urbanization appear to be paramount (Meyer et al. 2005). It has been shown that nonindigenous fish species DISCUSSION occur more often in areas that are more manipulated by humans (Gido et al. 2003; Leprieur et al. 2008; Molnar et al. 2008), By summarizing freshwater fish distributions in and around and our results reflect these past findings. In our study, rate of NPS units and spatially linking those data to stream habitat and urbanization (Δ%urb) is obviously related to human manipula- human disturbance, we were able to describe the distribution tion and has been shown to positively affect the percentage of of potential threats to freshwater fish resources in NPS units nonindigenous aquatic species (Center for Watershed Protec- of the Southeastern United States. Major results, in addition to tion 2003; Meyer et al. 2005; Cuffney et al. 2010). Declines in the status summaries and species lists, include (1) the impor- percentage agriculture are likely an indirect measure of increas- tance of NPS units in harboring native species, (2) a ranking ing urbanization because these lands are being converted to of NPS units relative to potentially important regional distur- urban areas in the Southeast (Drummond and Loveland 2010).

Fisheries • Vol 37 No 5• May 2012 • www.fisheries.org 217 TABLE 3. Freshwater habitat resources in National Park Service units of the Southeastern United States in relation to the surrounding watershed.

NPS unit acronym NPS area (ha) Kilometers of Number of watersheds Watershed area (ha) Kilometers of stream in stream in NPS encompassing NPS unit watershed(s) unit ABLI 40 0 1 812,811 9,676.1 BISO 50,910 797.1 1 356,026 5,179.0 BLRI 26,640 295.9 11 5,217,488 91,796.3 CARL 110 1.8 1 481,674 9,392.0 CHAT 3,940 123.8 1 408,862 5,258.7 CHCH 3,480 52.9 1 484,407 7,908.6 CONG 9,120 119.8 1 185,140 2,115.8 COWP 360 3.3 1 640,105 9,671.4 CUGA 8,630 87.8 2 846,895 11,507.6 FODO 220 2.2 1 606,981 8,480.6 GRSM 216,260 3,659.8 6 1,417,644 25,343.9 GUCO 260 2.9 1 441,455 7,753.6 HOBE 840 14.1 1 411,010 6,251.9 KEMO 1,610 12.5 2 127,1652 18,378.7 KIMO 1,750 32.5 1 640,104 9,671.4 LIRI 6,780 117.4 1 412,162 6,519.5 MACA 20,810 177.2 2 1,397,668 9,676.1 MOCR 40 0.6 1 405,816 5,425.8 NATR 17,710 353.2 15 5,568,709 102,977.5 NISI 400 7.0 1 650,066 10,038.1 OBED 2,150 87.1 1 225,324 3,998.7 OCMU 390 5.0 1 774,473 10,701.1 RUCA 130 0.7 1 513,785 7,536.7 SHIL 1,680 29.1 1 540,588 9,599.2 STRI 310 1.0 1 244,410 2,591.4

VICK 780 10.4 2 196,918 1,960.2

Related, increases in road density, which increase the number National Military Park) and individual acts of enabling leg- of road–stream crossings, indirectly correspond to urbanization islation. For example, a park established to protect Abraham rates. Road crossings provide easy access for official and unof- Lincoln’s boyhood home obviously has a different management ficial stocking of nonindigenous sport fish species (Trombulak focus than a park established to protect the native wildlife of Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:45 18 June 2012 and Frissell 2000). However, there is a lack of empirical data the Everglades. With this work, though, we have evaluated how supporting that road–stream crossings facilitate introductions all NPS units, regardless of designation, represent the broad- of nonindigenous fishes. Aquarium releases and stocking for er encompassing ecosystem and freshwater fish biodiversity sport accounted for more than one-half of nonindigenous fish (Earle et al. 2004). Our threat index did not differentiate scales introductions in the southeast (Benson et al. 2001), suggesting of impact (e.g., number of dams and pollution both were as- that road–stream crossings assist these stockings. For NPS units sumed to affect freshwater fish assemblages equally). Others in the Southeast, our results suggest that NPS managers could have allocated varying levels of severity based on the specific foster fish (and aquatic) conservation goals by engaging with threat (e.g., urbanized areas had a “high” impact on water qual- agencies and entities that affect rates of urbanization (e.g., city ity but a “medium” impact on biotic interactions; Mattson and and county planners). Angermeier 2007), and such an approach might be useful for follow-up studies. Though this index may be unrefined, it can A specific goal of this study was to understand the conserve as a coarse filter (Sowa et al. 2007) for prioritizing further tribution of NPS units to the conservation of fishes in the investigation into the aquatic health of systems in and around Southeast. In a relative sense, it gave equal footing to all NPS highly ranked park units. Additionally, Paukert et al. (2011) units, something that is ascribed to by the NPS (e.g., General reported relatively similar index values with varying method- Authorities Act of 1970 and Redwoods amendment of 1978) ologies for calculating ecological risk for watersheds in the but perhaps not often translated into action due to the variety Lower Colorado River basin. Our objective to examine how a of designations (e.g., National Park, National Recreation Area, variety of threats affected NPS units across a larger region was

218 Fisheries • Vol 37 No 5• May 2012• www.fisheries.org TABLE 4. Alterations to water resources in the surrounding watershed of Na- TABLE 5. Land use (2001), land use change (Δ; 1992–2001), population density tional Park Service units of the Southeastern United States. (people/km2; 1999), and population density change (Δ; 1990–1999) in the surrounding watershed of National Park Service units of the Southeastern United NPS unit Number Kiloliters of water Number of Kilometers States. acronym of dams stored behind road–stream of 303(d) dams crossings streams NPS %urb Δ%urb %ag. Δ%ag. Δ%for popdens Δpopdens ABLI 41 533,802,833 5,340 322.2 unit acronym BISO 20 4,700,799 2,306 155.5 ABLI 13.9 3.8 6.1 −2.8 −3.4 19.1 2.2 BLRI 868 5,488,862,195 86,344 3,725.4 BISO 3.0 5.7 0.3 0.4 −13.6 13.8 1.2 CARL 197 51,848,176 13,294 191.4 BLRI 16.0 5.2 3.7 1.7 −9.1 41.0 3.6 CHAT 210 2,389,491,148 5,316 403.6 CARL 7.6 4.6 10.4 4.6 −10.8 85.5 13.4 CHCH 51 1,743,726,401 8,079 545.8 CHAT 20.0 16.7 3.8 0.4 −21.4 478.7 116.1 CONG 132 24,209,548 1,770 12.6 CHCH 6.1 7.3 5.8 2.5 −15.3 116.5 7.2 COWP 240 211,206,628 6,456 61.6 CONG 0.2 7.1 0.1 −6.0 −17.4 108.2 8.5 CUGA 75 268,870,671 11,392 708.7 COWP 14.3 5.2 8.3 −0.2 −11.9 48.1 5.1 FODO 19 1,191,665,570 4,795 171.0 CUGA 3.2 7.0 0.0 −1.2 −15.8 25.6 −0.4 GRSM 145 2,667,311,963 27,757 1,762.3 FODO 5.9 2.4 4.1 −7.9 2.3 9.1 1.8 GUCO 220 418,040,563 6,222 363.4 GRSM 1.2 5.3 0.5 2.1 −10.4 32.3 4.9 HOBE 78 2,543,470,386 2,100 5.9 GUCO 62.7 8.0 0.8 2.0 −14.2 231.2 26.5 KEMO 734 1,875,477,063 10,697 861.4 HOBE 4.0 4.0 1.9 0.9 −17.4 20.4 1.1 KIMO 240 211,206,628 6,456 61.6 KEMO 14.3 9.1 5.7 1.2 −16.8 634.3 144.8 LIRI 81 395,654,101 4,332 771.8 KIMO 1.6 5.2 2.7 −0.2 −11.9 73.4 11.5 MACA 41 533,802,833 5,340 322.2 LIRI 2.0 5.7 2.1 2.2 −15.4 22.6 1.9 MOCR 44 6,252,519 2,801 307.9 MACA 0.2 4.2 0.3 −2.7 −3.5 20.9 2.1 NATR 1,229 3,668,671,021 49,680 6,687.3 MOCR 12.8 4.3 0.5 −3.9 −15.5 18.8 5.6 NISI 282 3,072,312,156 6,639 86.0 NATR 8.9 4.4 17.8 −4.9 −10.3 44.5 3.7 OBED 42 35,009,915 2,324 183.1 NISI 6.1 6.1 11.8 −2.4 −12.8 53.6 3.7 OCMU 468 389,339,908 7,359 51.6 OBED 2.7 8.0 0.5 0.5 −17.8 18.4 3.2 RUCA 28 6,113,136 4,716 243.0 OCMU 15.1 9.9 4.5 −0.1 −17.7 232.6 9.7 SHIL 30 883,064,449 4,867 281.7 RUCA 1.7 4.7 2.8 2.7 −12.6 17.8 1.4 STRI 7 249,751,702 2,169 126.7 SHIL 6.5 3.6 9.3 −2.2 −9.3 16.3 1.6 VICK 14 1,180,442 629 487.2 STRI 31.3 8.9 26.0 3.6 −17.5 108.3 33.8

VICK 20.1 2.2 3.8 −2.6 −1.9 18.6 0.6 adequately accomplished with our current methods and sets the stage for future work. limitations, we did not correct these data. The 303(d) data we The linear NPS units (i.e., BLRI and NATR) appeared to used may also underestimate total stream kilometers of imper- Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:45 18 June 2012 contain a great deal of nonindigenous species in their surround- iled streams because they were provided at the 1:100,000 scale ing watershed, suggesting high threats. However, because these and most other data were at the 1:24,000 scale. As a result, the units cross many watersheds, a native species in one watershed coarser scale data will result in fewer stream kilometers than may be nonindigenous in another, particularly in the Southeast- finer scales because of reduced stream sinuosity. In the broad ern United States where endemism is high among freshwater sense, however, we felt that these issues were minimal and the fishes (Warren et al. 2000). Because our analysis was park- reported data reflected comparable differences among areas. centric, we did not allow for differences in nativity among watersheds surrounding the park; instead, if a species was non- The scale of data also likely affected our ability to find pat- indigenous in any watershed surrounding a NPS unit, it was terns in habitat disturbance and fish species presence. In part, considered nonindigenous for the NPS unit. Issues like these variations in sampling effort in NPS units and surrounding were most evident at these linear NPS units and their threat watersheds would affect our ability to detect species pres- may be overemphasized as an artifact of our park-centric focus. ence, and our use of existing data meant that this variable was not under our control. Although many different water bodies The results of this type of project are dependent on the (e.g., streams, wetlands, and lakes) would have been sampled quality and scale of data. For example, a review of NID data on NPS areas, the resultant NPSpecies report (NPS 2009) did (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2005) showed imprecise geo- not distinguish among them, so we could not partition which referencing of dam locations that could affect our calculation species occurred in which specific water body type. Therefore, of number of dams per watershed. Due to time and resource and because streams were the predominant source of fish to be

Fisheries • Vol 37 No 5• May 2012 • www.fisheries.org 219 sampled, we focused our analysis of alteration on streams rather than other water body types, but this did not result in removal of any fish species from the NPSpecies data set. Our analysis would have been improved with the use of fish abundance and water body type data, but these data were not part of the data sets we used in our analysis and thus were not a goal of our study.

This project provides the first summary of freshwater aquatic resources and threats to NPS units in the Southeastern United States and demon- strates the utility of using available data to conduct such a wide-scale assessment. Units of the NPS generally serve as protected areas but, as units of a land management agency, were not generally established for the purpose of conserving freshwater fish habitat or diversity (Herbert et al. 2010). Our analysis suggests that forces operating outside of NPS control, such as urbanization, are significant stressors to freshwater fish communities in NPS units and would require coordinated efforts among agencies at many levels of government to provide for adequate conservation. We hope that by publishing this analysis and highlighting the associated issues, additional research on the role of NPS units (or units of other federal agencies) as protected areas in conserving broader scale biodiversity of freshwater fishes may be stimulated.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Lori Brons and the students of N. Nibbelink’s Spatial Analysis for Natural Resourc- es class at the University of Georgia who helped compile data and create maps. Pam Fuller (U.S. Geological Survey) provided data on nonindigenous aquatic species. We thank John Wullschleger, Michele Thieme, and three anonymous reviewers for constructive comments that improved the Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:45 18 June 2012 manuscript. Rick Bivens, Steve Moore, Pat Rakes, Ed Scott, and Patrick Flaherty helped resolve occurrences of recently described species within parks. This work was funded through a Challenge Cost Share agreement between the National Park Service and the University of Georgia and ad- ministered through the Piedmont–South Atlantic Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit as Task Agreement J5028000705. The Oklahoma Coop- erative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit is jointly supported by the U.S. Geological Survey, Oklaho- Figure 3. Rescaled (0–1, where 1 is the highest) human impacts of land use (urban, ma State University, the Oklahoma Department of agriculture (agric.), and forest), land use change (Δ; 1992–2001), human population (pop.) density (#/km2), human population density change (Δ; 1990–1999), percentage Wildlife Conservation, the Wildlife Management of 303(d) stream kilometers of all stream kilometers in surrounding watershed (%303d), Institute, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. density of road–stream crossings (#/stream km), and density of dams (#/stream km) to Mention of trade, product, industry, or firm names watersheds surrounding National Park Service (NPS) units in the Southeastern United or products or software or models, whether com- States. The dotted line indicates the upper quartile value. Acronyms of NPS units are found in Table 1. mercially available or not, does not constitute their endorsement by the U.S. Government.

220 Fisheries • Vol 37 No 5• May 2012• www.fisheries.org TABLE 6. Model selection results for candidate model set predicting percentage nonnative species composition of NPS units using human disturbance variables from the surrounding watershed(s): percentage change in urban area 1992–2001 (Δ%urb), percentage agriculture (%ag), percentage change in agriculture 1992–2001 (Δ%ag), road–stream crossings/stream kilometer (xings), and total stream length (strmkm).

Model AICc ΔAICc wi Δ%urb, %ag, xings 150.88 0.00 0.20 Δ%urb, strmkm 151.93 1.05 0.12 %ag, xings 152.22 1.34 0.10 Δ%urb, %ag, 152.45 1.57 0.09 strmkm Δ%urb, %ag 152.59 1.71 0.09 Δ%urb, xings 152.72 1.84 0.08 Δ%urb 152.80 1.92 0.08 Global model 153.12 2.24 0.07 xings 153.33 2.44 0.06 Δ%urb, xings, 153.76 2.87 0.05 strmkm %ag, xings, strmkm 155.03 4.30 0.03 xings, strmkm 155.21 4.33 0.02 strmkm 156.76 4.70 0.01 %ag 157.70 4.81 0.01 %ag, strmkm 158.46 7.57 0.01 Figure 4. Cumulative human impacts as measured by an index of threat to watersheds surrounding National Park Service (NPS) units in the Southeastern United States. Bars represent the sum of rescaled values depicted in Figure 3. Acronyms of NPS units TABLE 7. Model-averaged parameter estimates for the linear model of are found in Table 1. change in percentage urban (Δ%urb), percentage agriculture (%ag), road– stream crossings (xings), and total stream length (strmkm) in the watersheds surrounding units of the National Park Service (NPS) explaining the percent- Catonotus) from the Tennessee and Cumberland river drainages. age of nonindigenous (exotic and nonnative) fish species in NPS units. Upper and lower 90% confidence limits (CLs) and parameter importance values are Zootaxa 1963:1–24. shown. Blanton, R. E., and G. A. Schuster. 2008. Taxonomic status of Ethe- ostoma brevispinum, the Carolina fantail darter (Percidae: 90% CL Catonotus). Copeia 4:844–857. Parameter Estimate (SE) Lower Upper Importance Burnham, K. P., and D. R. Anderson. 2002. Model selection and multi- model inference: a practical information–theoretic approach, 2nd Intercept −2.44 (3.51) −8.19 3.32 1.00 edition. Springer, New York. Canonico, G., A. Arthington, J. McCrary, and M. Thieme. 2005. The Δ%urb 0.86 (0.37) 0.25 1.47 0.77 effects of introduced tilapias on native biodiversity. Aquatic Con-

Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:45 18 June 2012 %ag −0.35 (0.18) −0.64 −0.05 0.61 servation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 15:463–483. Center for Watershed Protection. 2003. Impacts of impervious cover xings 9.17 (4.70) 1.47 16.87 0.58 on aquatic systems. Center for Watershed Protection, Watershed strmkm 0.00 (0.00) −0.000 0.00 0.39 Protection Research Monograph 1, Ellicott City, Maryland. Clean Water Act. 2002. Section 303. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Available: http://epw.senate.gov/wa- REFERENCES ter.pdf. (July 2008). Cuffney, T. F., R. A. Brightbill, J. T. May, and I. R. Waite. 2010. Re- Anderson, J., E. Hardy, J. Roach, and R. Witmer. 1976. A land use sponses of benthic macroinvertebrates to environmental changes and land cover classification system for use with remote sensor associated with urbanization in nine metropolitan areas. Ecologi- data. United Sates Government Printing Office, U.S. Geological cal Applications 20:1384–1401. Survey Professional Paper 964, Washington, D.C. Drummond, M. A., and T. R. Loveland. 2010. Land-use pressure and a Benson, A. J., P. L. Fuller, and C. C. Jacono. 2001. Summary report of transition to forest-cover loss in the eastern United States. BioSci- nonindigenous aquatic species in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ence 60(4):286–298. Region 4. Report of the U.S. Geological Survey, Florida Carib- Earle, S. A., R. Chandler, L. Madin, S. M. Malcom, G. P. Nabhan, P. bean Science Center to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, Raven, and E. O. Wilson. 2004. National Park Service science in Virginia. the 21st century: recommendations concerning future directions Blanton, R. E., and R. E. Jenkins. 2008. Three new darters of the for science and scientific resource management in the national Etheostoma percnurum species complex (Percidae, subgenus parks. National Park System Advisory Board, Washington, D.C.

Fisheries • Vol 37 No 5• May 2012 • www.fisheries.org 221 ESRI (Environmental Systems Research Institute). 2006. ArcMap ver- NPS (National Park Service). 2006. Management policies: the guide to sion 9.2. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, managing the National Park System. U.S. National Park Service, California. Washington, D.C. ———. 2007. StreetMap USA. Environmental Systems Research In- ———. 2008. The Inventory and Monitoring Program. Available: stitute, Redlands, California. http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/. (July 2008). Gido, K. B., J. F. Schaefer, and J. Pigg. 2003. Patterns of fish invasions ———. 2009. NPSpecies - The National Park Service Biodiversity in the Great Plains of North America. Biological Conservation Database. Available: https://science1.nature.nps.gov/npspecies/ 118:121–131. web/main/start. (April 2009). Herbert, M. E., P. B. McIntyre, P. Doran, J. D. Allan, and R. Abell. Paukert, C. P., K. L. Pitts, J. B. Whittier, and J. D. Olden. 2011. De- 2010. Terrestrial reserve networks do not adequately represent velopment and assessment of a landscape-scale ecological threat aquatic ecosystems. Conservation Biology 24:1002–1011. index for the Lower Colorado River Basin. Ecological Indicators Humborg, C., V. Ittekkot, A. Cociasu, and B. Bodungen. 1997. Effect 11:304–310. of Danube River dam on Black Sea biogeochemistry and ecosys- Postel, S., G. Daily, and P. Ehrlich. 1996. Human appropriation of re- tem structure. Nature 386(27):385–388. newable fresh water. Science 271:785–788. Jelks, H.L., S.J. Walsh, N.M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Powers, S. L., and R. L. Mayden. 2007. Systematics, evolution and Díaz-Pardo, D.A. Hendrickson, J. Lyons, N.E. Mandrak, F. Mc- biogeography of the Etheostoma simoterum species complex Cormick, J.S. Nelson, S.P. Platania, B.A. Porter, C.B. Renaud, J.J. (Percidae: subgenus Ulocentra). Bulletin of the Alabama Mu- Schmitter-Soto, E.B. Taylor, M.L. Warren. 2008. Conservation seum of Natural History 25:1–23. status of imperiled North American freshwater and diadromous Schoonover, J., B. Lockaby, and B. Helms. 2006. Impacts of land fishes. Fisheries 33(8):372–407. cover on stream hydrology in the west Georgia piedmont, USA. Johnson, P. T. J., J. D. Olden, and M. J. Vander Zanden. 2008. Dam Journal of Environmental Quality 35:2123–2131. invaders: impoundments facilitate biological invasions into fresh- Sowa, S. P., G. Annis, M. E. Morey, and D. D. Diamond. 2007. A GAP waters. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 6:357–363. analysis and comprehensive conservation strategy for riverine Kruk, A., and T. Penczak. 2003. Impoundment impact on populations ecosystems of Missouri. Ecological Monographs 77:301–334. of facultative riverine fish. Annales de Limnologie - International Thompson, W. L., and D. C. Lee. 2000. Modeling relationships be- Journal of Limnology 39:197–210. tween landscape-level attributes and snorkel counts of Chinook Leprieur, F., O. Beauchard, S. Blanchet, T. Oberdoff, and S. Brosse. salmon and steelhead parr in Idaho. Canadian Journal of Fisheries 2008. Fish invasions in the world’s river systems: When natu- and Aquatic Sciences 57:1834–1842. ral processes are blurred by human activities. PLoS Biology Trombulak, S., and C. Frissell. 2000. Review of ecological effects of 6(2):e28. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0060028 roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities. Conservation Biol- Long, J. M. 2010. Inventory of fishes as a small national park in North ogy 14:18–30. Carolina: Guildford Courthouse National Military Park. Journal U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2005. National inventory of dams. of the North Carolina Academy of Science 126:77–83. Available: http://crunch.tec.army.mil/nidpublic/webpages/nid. Mattson, K. M., and P. L. Angermeier. 2007. Integrating human im- cfm. (January 2008). pacts and ecological integrity into a risk-based protocol for U.S. Department of the Interior. 2009. Budget justifications and per- conservation planning. Environmental Management 39:125–138. formance information, fiscal year 2009: National Park Service. Meyer, J. L., M. J. Paul, and W. K. Taulbee. 2005. Stream ecosystem United States Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. function in urbanizing landscapes. Journal of the North American Available: http://home.nps.gov/applications/budgetweb/fy2009/ Benthological Society 24:602–612. ovw_cover.pdf. (December 2009). Molnar, J., R. Gamboa, C. Revenga, and M. Spalding. 2008. Assessing U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Threatened and endangered the global threat of invasive species to marine biodiversity. Fron- species system. Available: http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/. (Feb- tiers in Ecology and the Environment 6:485–492. ruary 2008). Moore, D., and G. McCabe. 1993. Introduction to the practice of sta- U.S. Geological Survey. 2007a. Land Cover Institute. Available: http:// tistics, 2nd edition. W. H. Freeman, New York. landcover.usgs.gov/. (January 2008).

Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:45 18 June 2012 NatureServe. 2004. Downloadable animal datasets: distribution of na- ———. 2007b. National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). Available: tive U.S. fishes by watershed. Available: http://www.natureserve. http://nhd.usgs.gov/. (January 2008). org/getData/dataSets/watershedHucs/index.jsp. (January 2008). ———. 2007c. Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database. Available: Neely, D. A., J. D. Williams, and R. L. Mayden. 2007. Two new scul- http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/default.asp. (June 2008). pins of the genus Cottus (Teleostei: Cottidae) from rivers of ———. 2008. Multi-resolution land characteristic consortium eastern North America. Copeia 3:641–655. (MRLC): frequently asked questions. Available: http://www. Nelson, J. S., E. J. Crossman, H. Espinosa-Pérez, L. T. Findley, C. R. mrlc.gov/faq.php. (March 2008). Gilbert, R. N. Lea, and J. D. Williams. 2004. Common and scien- Warren, M., P. Angermeier, B. Burr, and W. Haag. 1997. Aquatic fauna tific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico. in peril: the southeastern perspective. Pages 105–164 in G. Benz, American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 29, Bethesda, editor. Southeast Aquatic Research Institute, Lenz Design and Maryland. Communication, Special Publication 1, Decatur, Georgia. Nibbelink, N. P., J. M. Long, K. T. McAbee, J. C. Wilson, and L. Warren, M. L., and M. G. Pardew. 1998. Road crossings as barriers to Brons. 2009. Watershed-based condition and threat assessment small-stream fish movement. Transactions of the American Fish- for fish and aquatic habitat in southeastern National Park Service eries Society 127:637–644. units. National Park Service, Final Report, Atlanta, Georgia. Warren, M.L., B.M. Burr, S.J. Walsh, H.L. Bart, R.C. Cashner, D.A. Nilsson, C., C. Reidy, M. Dynesius, and C. Revenga. 2005. Fragmen- Etnier, B.J. Freeman, B.R. Kuhajda, R.L. Mayden, H.W. Robison, tation and flow regulation of the world’s large river systems. S.T. Ross, and W.C. Starnes. 2000. Diversity, distribution, and Science 308:405–408. conservation status of the native freshwater fishes of the southern United States. Fisheries 25(10):7–31.

222 Fisheries • Vol 37 No 5• May 2012• www.fisheries.org Appendix TABLE A1. List of 288 fish species occurring in the 26 NPS units with freshwater fish species in the composition. NPS unit acronyms are listed in Table 1.

Scientific name NPS units with Scientific name NPS units with Scientific name NPS units with species species species Acantharchus pomotis CONG Cottus chattahoocheee CHAT Etheostoma blennius NATR Ctenopharyngodon idellac CARL, CHAT, SHIL Etheostoma boschungia,f NATR

a Acipenser fulvescens BISO Cyprinella analostana BLRI Etheostoma brevispinum BLRI, COWP, KIMO Alosa aestivalis CHAT Cyprinella caeruleaa,f LIRI Etheostoma caeruleum BISO, CHCH, CUGA, Alosa chrysochloris MACA FODO, MACA, NATR, Cyprinella callisema OCMU STRI Alosa pseudoharengus BISO Cyprinella callistia LIRI Etheostoma camurum BISO, OBED Ambloplites rupestris BISO, BLRI,b CUGA, Cyprinella camura NATR, SHIL Etheostoma chloro- GRSM GRSM, MACA, OBED, branchium STRI Cyprinella chloristia CONG, KIMO Etheostoma chlorosoma NATR, VICK Amblyopsis spelaeaa MACA Cyprinella galactura BISO,b BLRI, GRSM, NATR, OBED, STRI Etheostoma cinereuma BISO, OBED Ameiurus brunneusa CHAT, CONG Cyprinella lutrensis NATR Etheostoma collisa KIMO, MOCR, NISI Ameiurus melas BLRI,b OBED, SHIL, STRI, VICK Cyprinella nivea CONG Etheostoma coosae LIRI Ameiurus natalis BISO, BLRI, CONG, Cyprinella spiloptera BISO, BLRI, MACA, Etheostoma coronaa NATR FODO, GRSM, GUCO, NATR, OBED, SHIL, KEMO, LIRI, NATR, STRI Etheostoma crossop- FODO, NATR, STRI NISI, OBED, SHIL, terum Cyprinella trichroistia LIRI STRI, VICK Etheostoma derivativum NATR Ameiurus nebulosus BLRI, CHAT, CONG, Cyprinella venusta CHAT, LIRI, NATR Etheostoma duryi NATR GUCO, HOBE Cyprinella whipplei NATR, STRI a b Etheostoma flabellare ABLI, BLRI, CUGA, Ameiurus platycephalus BLRI, CARL, CONG, Cyprinus carpioc BISO, BLRI, CHAT, GUCO, KIMO, NISI GRSM, MACA, NATR, CONG, GRSM, HOBE, STRI Amia calva CONG, NATR, OCMU MACA, OCMU, STRI, VICK Etheostoma fusiforme CONG, VICK Anguilla rostrata BLRI, CONG, MACA, a MOCR, OCMU Dorosoma cepedianum BISO, BLRI, CHAT, Etheostoma gutselli GRSM CONG, GRSM, MACA, Etheostoma histrio NATR Aphredoderus sayanus CONG, NATR, SHIL, NATR, OBED, SHIL, VICK STRI Etheostoma jordani LIRI Aplodinotus grunniens BISO, LIRI, MACA, Dorosoma petenense CONG, NATR, SHIL Etheostoma kanawhae BLRI OBED, SHIL Elassoma evergladei MOCR Etheostoma kennicotti CUGA, NATR, SHIL Campostoma anomalum ABLI, BISO, BLRI, CARL, CUGA, GRSM, Elassoma okefenokee OCMU Etheostoma lachneri NATR NATR, STRI, VICK Elassoma zonatum CONG, MOCR Etheostoma lawrencei ABLI Campostoma oligolepis BISO, BLRI, CHCH, FODO, GRSM, LIRI, Enneacanthus chae- CONG Etheostoma BISO a MACA, NATR, OBED, todon lemniscatuma,f,h RUCA, SHIL Enneacanthus gloriosus CONG, OCMU Etheostoma longimanum BLRI Campostoma pauciradii KEMO Enneacanthus obesus OCMU Etheostoma lynceum NATR c Carassius auratus CHAT, GRSM, MACA, a,f Erimonax monachus GRSM, OBED Etheostoma maculatuma MACA STRI Erimystax dissimilis BISO, MACA Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:45 18 June 2012 Carpiodes carpio NATR Etheostoma nigrum BLRI, MACA, NATR Erimystax insignis STRI Carpiodes cyprinus BLRI,b NATR Etheostoma obeyense BISO Erimyzon oblongus CONG, GUCO, NATR, Etheostoma occidentaleg NATR Carpiodes velifer NATR SHIL Etheostoma olmstedi BLRI,b CONG, KIMO, Catostomus commersonii BISO, BLRI, CARL, Erimyzon sucetta CONG, MOCR, SHIL CHAT, CHCH, CUGA, NISI GRSM, KIMO, MACA Esox americanus CHAT, CONG, MACA, Etheostoma parvipinne SHIL NATR, OCMU, SHIL Centrarchus macropterus CONG, NATR, OCMU, Etheostoma planasaxa- NATR b SHIL Esox masquinongy BISO, BLRI, MACA, tileg OBED Chologaster cornuta CONG Etheostoma podoste- BLRI Esox niger CHAT, CONG, OCMU Clinostomus funduloides BLRI,b COWP, GRSM, mone GUCO, KIMO, NATR, Etheostoma asprigene VICK Etheostoma proeliare NATR, SHIL

SHIL g Etheostoma atripinne STRI Etheostoma rafinesquei MACA Clinostomus sp. cf. GRSM funduloidesa,d Etheostoma baileyi BISO Etheostoma rufilineatum BLRI, GRSM, NATR, OBED, STRI Cottus bairdii BLRI, CARL, GRSM Etheostoma bellum MACA Etheostoma sagitta BISO, CUGA Cottus carolinae CHAT, CHCH, CUGA, Etheostoma blennioides BISO, CUGA, GRSM, GRSM, LIRI, MACA, MACA, NATR, OBED, Etheostoma serrifer CONG, MOCR NATR, RUCA, STRI STRI Etheostoma sitikuensea,f,h GRSM

Fisheries • Vol 37 No 5• May 2012 • www.fisheries.org 223 TABLE A1. List of 288 fish species occurring in the 26 NPS units with freshwater fish species in the composition. NPS unit acronyms are listed in Table 1.

Scientific name NPS units with Scientific name NPS units with Scientific name NPS units with species species species Etheostoma spectabile MACA Lampetra aepyptera SHIL Macrhybopsis aestivalisa MACA Etheostoma stigmaeum BISO, LIRI, MACA, Lampetra appendix GRSM Micropterus cataractaea CHAT, OCMUb STRI Lepisosteus oculatus NATR Micropterus coosae HOBE, LIRI, OBEDb Etheostoma susanaea BISO Lepisosteus osseus BISO, CHAT, CONG, Micropterus dolomieu BISO, BLRI,b GRSM, Etheostoma swaini NATR LIRI, MACA, NATR, KIMO,b MACA, OBED, OBED, SHIL, STRI STRI Etheostoma swannanoa BLRI, GRSM Lepomis auritus BISO, BLRI,b CARL,b Micropterus punctulatus BISO, CHAT, CUGA,b Etheostoma tennes- CHCH, CUGA, GRSM, CHAT, CHCH,b CONG, GRSM, HOBE, LIRI, g seense NATR, OBED COWP, CUGA,b FODO,b MACA, NATR, OBED, Etheostoma thalassinum KIMO GRSM,b GUCO, STRI KEMO,b KIMO, LIRI,b a Micropterus salmoides BISO, BLRI,b CARL, Etheostoma tippecanoe BISO, MACA NISI, OBED,b OCMU CHAT, CHCH, CONG, Etheostoma virgatum STRI Lepomis cyanellus BISO, BLRI,b CHAT, CUGA,b FODO, GRSM, CHCH, CONG, CUGA, GUCO, LIRI, MACA, Etheostoma vulneratuma GRSM, OBED FODO, GRSM, HOBE, MOCR, NATR,b NISI, Etheostoma whipplei NATR KEMO, LIRI, MACA, OBED, OCMU,b SHIL, NATR, NISI, OBED, STRI, VICK Etheostoma zonale BISO, GRSM, MACA, SHIL, STRI, VICK NATR Minytrema melanops CHAT, CONG, LIRI, Lepomis gibbosus BLRI,b CONG, GUCO MACA, NATR, OBED, Etheostoma zonistium SHIL OCMU, SHIL, STRI Lepomis gulosus BLRI,b CARL, CHAT, Forbesichthys agassizii MACA CHCH, CONG, CUGA,b Monopterus sp. cf. albusg,i CHAT GRSM, GUCO, LIRI, Fundulus catenatus ABLI, BISO, MACA, Morone americana BLRI, CONG MACA,b MOCR, NATR, NATR, STRI NISI, OCMU, SHIL, Morone chrysops BISO, GRSM, MACA Fundulus lineolatus CONG STRI, VICK Morone saxatilis BISO, BLRI,b CHAT Fundulus notatus MACA, NATR, STRI Lepomis macrochirus BISO, BLRI,b CARL, CHAT, CHCH, CONG, Moxostoma anisurum BISO, MACA Fundulus olivaceus CHCH, NATR, SHIL CUGA, FODO, GRSM, Moxostoma breviceps BISO Fundulus stellifer CHAT, LIRI GUCO, HOBE, KEMO, KIMO, LIRI, MACA, Moxostoma carinatum BISO, GRSM, MACA Gambusia affinis CHCH, CONG, FODO, MOCR, NATR, NISI, MACA,b NATR, SHIL, OBED, OCMU, SHIL, Moxostoma cervinum BLRI STRI, VICK STRI Moxostoma collapsum BLRI Gambusia holbrooki CHAT, CONG, GRSM,b Lepomis marginatus CONG, SHIL Moxostoma duquesnei BISO, GRSM, LIRI, GUCO, MOCR, NISI, MACA, NATR, OBED OCMU Lepomis megalotis BISO, LIRI, MACA, NATR, OBED, OCMU, Moxostoma erythrurum BISO, BLRI, GRSM, Hemitremia flammeaa GRSM, NATR SHIL, STRI MACA, NATR, OBED, Hiodon tergisus MACA Lepomis microlophus BISO, CARL, CHAT, SHIL, STRI CHCH, CONG, GRSM, Moxostoma macrolepi- BLRI, CONG, GRSM, Hybognathus nuchalis NATR, VICK LIRI, MACA,b NATR, dotum MACA Hybognathus regius CONG NISI, OBED, OCMU, SHIL, STRI Moxostoma pappillosum BLRI Hybopsis amblops BISO, GRSM, MACA, NATR, OBED, STRI Lepomis miniatus NATR Moxostoma poecilurum LIRI Hybopsis hypsinotus BLRI, COWP, KIMO Lepomis punctatus CONG, KEMO, OCMU Moxostoma rupiscartes BLRI, KIMO

b Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:45 18 June 2012 Hybopsis rubrifrons NISI Luxilus albeolus BLRI Moxostoma sp. cf. GRSM macrolepidotuma,j Hybopsis winchelli NATR Luxilus cerasinus BLRI Moxostoma sp. cf. poe- CHAT Hypentelium etowanum CHAT, LIRI Luxilus chrysocephalus ABLI, BISO, CHCH, cilurumk CUGA, GRSM, MACA, Hypentelium nigricans BISO, BLRI, CHCH, NATR, OBED,b SHIL, Mugil cephalus OCMU CUGA, GRSM, KIMO, STRI MACA, NATR, OBED, Nocomis effusus STRI Luxilus coccogenis BLRI,b CARL, CHCH, SHIL, STRI b GRSM, NATR, OBED Nocomis leptocephalus BLRI, CHAT, CONG, Hypentelium roanokense BLRI COWP, GUCO, KEMO, Luxilus cornutus BLRI KIMO, NATR, NISI Ichthyomyzon bdellium BISO Luxilus zonistius CHAT, KEMO, NATR Nocomis micropogon BISO, BLRI,b CARL, Ichthyomyzon greeleyi BISO, GRSM GRSM, NATR, OBED Lythrurus ardens BLRI, MACA, NATR, Ictalurus punctatus BISO, BLRI,b CHAT, SHIL, STRI Nocomis raneyi BLRI CONG, HOBE, LIRI, Notemigonus crysoleucas BLRI,b CARL, CONG, MACA, NATR, NISI, Lythrurus bellus NATR MACA, MOCR, NATR, OBED, OCMU Lythrurus fasciolaris ABLI, BISO, OBED NISI, OBED, OCMU, Ictiobus bubalus BISO, MACA, OBED Lythrurus fumeus SHIL SHIL, VICK Labidesthes sicculus BISO, CONG, GRSM, Lythrurus roseipinnis NATR Notropis ammophilus NATR MACA, NATR, OCMU, Notropis amoenus BLRI SHIL, STRI Lythrurus umbratilis NATR

224 Fisheries • Vol 37 No 5• May 2012• www.fisheries.org TABLE A1. List of 288 fish species occurring in the 26 NPS units with freshwater fish species in the composition. NPS unit acronyms are listed in Table 1.

Scientific name NPS units with Scientific name NPS units with Scientific name NPS units with Scientific name NPS units with species species species species Macrhybopsis aestivalisa MACA Notropis amplamala CHAT Oncorhynchus mykiss BISO,b BLRI,b CHAT,b Salmo truttag BLRI, CHAT, GRSM GRSM,b MACAb Micropterus cataractaea CHAT, OCMUb Notropis ariommusa BISO, MACA Salvelinus fontinalis BLRI,b GRSMb Opsopoeodus emiliae MACA, NATR, SHIL Micropterus coosae HOBE, LIRI, OBEDb Notropis atherinoides BISO, MACA, NATR, Sander canadensis BISO, OBED, SHIL SHIL, VICK Perca flavescens BLRI,b CHAT,b CONG, b Micropterus dolomieu BISO, BLRI, GRSM, GRSM,b SHIL Sander vitreus BISO, GRSM, MACA KIMO,b MACA, OBED, Notropis baileyi NATR STRI Percina aurantiaca GRSM, OBED Semotilus atromaculatus ABLI, BISO, BLRI, Notropis boops STRI CARL, CHCH, COWP, Micropterus punctulatus BISO, CHAT, CUGA,b Percina caprodes BISO, GRSM, LIRI, CUGA, FODO, GRSM, Notropis buccatus CUGA GRSM, HOBE, LIRI, MACA, NATR, OBED, GUCO, KEMO, KIMO, MACA, NATR, OBED, Notropis buchanani MACA STRI LIRI, MACA, NATR, STRI Percina copelandi BISO, MACA NISI, OBED, SHIL, Notropis chalybaeusa CONG VICK Micropterus salmoides BISO, BLRI,b CARL, Percina crassa CONG CHAT, CHCH, CONG, Notropis chiliticus BLRIb Semotilus corporalis BLRI CUGA,b FODO, GRSM, Percina evides GRSM, MACA GUCO, LIRI, MACA, Notropis chlorocephalus BLRI Semotilus thoreauianus KEMO b Percina gymnocephala BLRI MOCR, NATR, NISI, Notropis cummingsae CONG Thoburnia rhothoeca BLRI OBED, OCMU,b SHIL, Percina maculata BISO, NATR STRI, VICK Notropis hudsonius BLRI, CHAT, CONG, Typhlichthys subter- MACA NISI, OCMU Percina nigrofasciata CHAT, KEMO, LIRI, raneusa Minytrema melanops CHAT, CONG, LIRI, NISI, OCMU MACA, NATR, OBED, Notropis leuciodus BISO, GRSM, NATR, Umbra pygmaea CONG OCMU, SHIL, STRI OBED Percina notogramma BLRI Monopterus sp. cf. albusg,i CHAT Notropis longirostris NATR Percina palmaris LIRI

b Morone americana BLRI, CONG Notropis lutipinnis CHAT, COWP, KIMO, Percina phoxocephala MACA NISI Morone chrysops BISO, GRSM, MACA Percina roanoka BLRI Notropis maculatus CONG, OCMU Morone saxatilis BISO, BLRI,b CHAT Percina sciera BISO, MACA, NATR, Notropis micropteryx BISO SHIL Moxostoma anisurum BISO, MACA aImperiled (endangered, threatened, vulnerable, Notropis petersoni CONG, OCMU Percina squamataa BISO, GRSM, OBED extinct, possibly extinct, or extirpated in nature) as Moxostoma breviceps BISO determined by the American Fisheries Society’s Notropis photogenis BISO, GRSM, MACA, Percina vigil NATR Endangered Species Committee and reported by Moxostoma carinatum BISO, GRSM, MACA OBED Phenacobius crassila- GRSM Jelks et al. (2008). Moxostoma cervinum BLRI b Notropis procne BLRI brum bNonnative to at least one of the surrounding Moxostoma collapsum BLRI Notropis rubellus BLRI, CUGA, MACA Phenacobius teretulus BLRI watershed(s) of the NPS unit as listed on the U.S. b Geological Survey website of Nonindigenous Aquatic Moxostoma duquesnei BISO, GRSM, LIRI, Notropis rubricroceus BLRI, GRSM Phoxinus BISO, CUGA MACA, NATR, OBED a,f Species (USGS 2007c). Notropis scepticus KIMO, NISI cumberlandensis Moxostoma erythrurum BISO, BLRI, GRSM, Phoxinus erythrogaster ABLI, BISO, CUGA, cExotic (not native to United States). Notropis spectrunculus BLRI,b GRSM MACA, NATR, OBED, FODO, MACA, NATR, SHIL, STRI d Notropis stilbius LIRI, NATR SHIL Undescribed species known as smoky dace.

Moxostoma macrolepi- BLRI, CONG, GRSM, b Notropis stramineus BISO, OBED Phoxinus oreas BLRI e dotum MACA The Chattahoochee sculpin, described by Neely et a al. (2007) after validation of NPSpecies and publica- Notropis telescopus BISO, BLRI,b GRSM, Phoxinus tennesseensis GRSM Moxostoma pappillosum BLRI tion of common and scientific names of fishes from NATR, OBED Pimephales notatus ABLI, BLRI, CHCH, the United States, Canada, and Mexico (Nelson et Moxostoma poecilurum LIRI Notropis texanus NATRb CUGA, MACA, NATR, al. 2004). Moxostoma rupiscartes BLRI, KIMO SHIL, STRI, VICK Notropis volucellus BISO, BLRI, MACA, f Pimephales promelas BISO, BLRI,b VICK Federally listed as threatened or endangered under Moxostoma sp. cf. GRSM Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:45 18 June 2012 OBED, SHIL the Endangered Species Act. macrolepidotuma,j Notropis wickliffi NATR Pimephales vigilax BISO, LIRI, MACA, g Moxostoma sp. cf. poe- CHAT NATR, SHIL Formerly E. simoterum (Powers and Mayden 2007). k Notropis xaenocephalus LIRI cilurum Pomoxis annularis HOBE, MACA, NATR, hFormerly E. percnurum (Blanton and Jenkins 2008), Noturus baileyia,f GRSM OCMU, SHIL, STRI Mugil cephalus OCMU which is federally endangered. Nocomis effusus STRI Noturus eleutherus MACA Pomoxis nigromaculatus CARL, CHAT, CONG, GRSM, GUCO, MACA, iUndescribed species known as Asian swamp eel. b Noturus exilis STRI Nocomis leptocephalus BLRI, CHAT, CONG, MOCR, NATR, NISI, j COWP, GUCO, KEMO, Noturus flavipinnisa,f GRSM OCMU, STRI Undescribed species known as sicklefin redhorse. KIMO, NATR, NISI Noturus flavus BISO Pteronotropis hypsel- CONG kUndescribed species known as grayfin or Apala- Nocomis micropogon BISO, BLRI,b CARL, opterus chicola redhorse. GRSM, NATR, OBED Noturus funebris NATR Pylodictis olivaris BISO, BLRI,b CONG,b Nocomis raneyi BLRI Noturus gyrinus CHAT, CONG, NATR GRSM, HOBE, LIRI, MACA, OBED, OCMUb Notemigonus crysoleucas BLRI,b CARL, CONG, Noturus insignis BLRI,b CONG, KIMO, MACA, MOCR, NATR, NISI Rhinichthys atratulus BISO, BLRI, CUGA, NISI, OBED, OCMU, NATR, OBED, SHIL SHIL, VICK Noturus leptacanthus CONG, LIRI Rhinichthys cataractae BLRI, GRSM Notropis ammophilus NATR Noturus miurus NATR Rhinichthys obtusus ABLI, CHCH, FODO, Notropis amoenus BLRI Noturus phaeus SHIL GRSM, RUCA

Fisheries • Vol 37 No 5• May 2012 • www.fisheries.org 225 SECTION UPDATES

Fish Culture Section Exclusive: Better Know a Hatchery— Genoa National Fish Hatchery Brian Gause

What is the name of your facility, how did it get mussel adults are collected from specific locations in different that name, and how long has it been in opera- rivers. To help manage these risks, we have a biosecurity plan tion? with very strict protocols and procedures in place to minimize Genoa National Fish Hatchery, located in Genoa, Wiscon- hatchery exposure to fish pathogens or nontarget species. Our sin, has been producing fish since 1932. It was built during the fish undergo health inspections biannually to ensure that they Great Depression by the Civilian Conservation Corps. are pathogen free before stocking or transfer.

What fish do you raise and approximately how In one sentence, why is fish culture important? many? Cultured threatened and endangered species are like a safe In 2011 we raised 13 species of cold-, cool-, and warmwa- deposit box of genetics for research and future restoration ef- ter fishes and 14 species of freshwater mussels. We produced forts. Fish culture can provide lots of healthy food for lots of over 10 million fish and mussels for restoration; recovery of people. threatened and endangered species; tribal, state, and federal agreements; research; recreation; and education. Do you have a website where we can learn more? For more information, visit What are the fish you raise used for? http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Genoa/ and Originally, the hatchery was created to produce sport- and http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=hp#!/GenoaNFH panfish for area waters. We are still raising walleye, rainbow trout, large- and smallmouth bass, bluegill, black crappie, and To see the complete “Better Know a Hatchery” feature on yellow perch for sport and recreation. Our main focus these days Genoa National Fish Hatchery as well as features on other fa- is on threatened and endangered species recovery and restoring cilities, visit the Fish Culture Section Webpage at: http://sites. depleted populations of fish. Some of our largest programs are google.com/site/fishculturesection/home and click on the “Bet- restoring threatened lake sturgeon to the Red River, Mississippi ter Know a Hatchery” tab. River, and Wolf River watersheds; recovery of the endangered winged mapleleaf mussel and Higgins eye pearly mussel; and restoration of threatened populations of coaster brook trout to Lake Superior. We also raise some additional aquatic species such as golden shiner, log- Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:45 18 June 2012 perch, and mudpuppy salamanders to use as in-house mussel hosts. We also raise fathead minnows as a for- age species for larger fish.

What is the biggest challenge facing your facility today? What challenges do you foresee in the future? Maintaining biosecurity is always a challenge at a station that raises many species coming from many sources. Our walleye, sauger, and northern pike eggs still come from wild stock in the Mississippi The staff of Genoa (L-R: Austin Lockington-YCC, Dan Kumlin-Maintenance Mechanic, Angela Baran- River. Lake sturgeon are spawned Assistant Manager, Jenny Bailey-Fish Biologist, Orey Eckes-STEP, Doug Aloisi-Project Leader, Jorge in the wild from three different wa- Buening-Fish Biologist, Darla Wenger-Administrative Assistant, Nathan Eckert-Mussel Propagation tersheds, and all of our freshwater Biologist, Quentin Strand-YCC, Jeff Lockington-Maintenance Worker)

226 Fisheries • Vol 37 No 5• May 2012• www.fisheries.org Canadian Aquatic Resources Section Gets a Voice in the Canadian Science and Policy Arena With financial support from the American Fisheries Soci- speakers deliver presentations. They also prepare a joint sub- ety (AFS) Governing Board, the Canadian Aquatic Resources mission to the Senate and Parliamentary Finance Committees Section (CARS) of AFS will be joining the Partnership Group and routinely meet with the president of the National Sciences for Science and Engineering (PAGSE) to provide a voice for and Engineering Research Council of Canada (the Canadian AFS and related fisheries issues in Canada. The AFS has little National Science Foundation equivalent) and develop outreach if any presence or influence on Parliament Hill in Ottawa and materials for politicians and the public. They also organize a associated federal science (including funding, identifying pri- workshop for “young” science leaders in Canada where they orities) and policy in Canada. PAGSE is a group composed of have them explore how to overcome challenges at the science approximately 26 member organizations, including the Canadi- policy interface. The CARS executives believe that member- an Society of Zoologists, the Royal Society of Canada, and the ship in PAGSE will improve the ability of CARS to engage the Society for Canadian Limnologists. Until March of this year, Canadian government, politicians, and the general public on is- AFS was notably absent. PAGSE engages in a variety of ac- sues related to fisheries and aquatic science. tivities, including organizing a monthly breakfast at Parliament Hill called “Bacon and Eggheads” where prominent science ~ Steven Cooke (CARS President) and Caleb Hasler (CARS Communication Officer) A Look into the Past from the Fish History Section

The 1917 Bureau of Fisheries Report shows that the bureau apparently had a very good year, something that some of us haven’t seen for a while (at least budget-wise). Imagine liberal financial support from Congress!

The past fiscal year may properly be regarded as the most important and successful in the recent history of the Bureau. The service was better equipped than ever before in both material facilities and personnel; it received liberal financial support from Congress and generous criticism and appreciation from the public; it was enabled to extend and expand its activities so as to serve in a most acceptable manner a large usefulness to the fishing industry and the country at large; it was privileged to make special adaptation of its investigational and technical operations to meet the great national emergency; and at the beginning of the current fiscal year its outlook for continued and increased usefulness in all lines of activity was most promising. (Report of the United States Commissioner of Fisheries for the Fiscal Year 1917. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC).

~ compiled by Randi Sue Smith Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:45 18 June 2012

Fisheries • Vol 37 No 5• May 2012 • www.fisheries.org 227 Tentative AFS Fish Health Section Meeting Agenda

Tuesday, July 31, 2012 5-7 p.m. Registration 6-9 p.m. Social/Reception/Poster Set-up

Wednesday, August 1, 2012 8-9 a.m. Registration 8 a.m. – 5 p.m. Sessions:  Aquaculture Drug Research & Development  Emerging Fish & Aquatic Animal Pathogens  Amazing and Challenging Diagnostic Cases 6-7 p.m. Poster Session 7-9 p.m. Banquet

Thursday, August 2, 2012 8-9 a.m. Registration 8 a.m. – 5 p.m. Sessions: Radisson Hotel with spectacular views of  Bacteriology the Mississippi River (Photo courtesy of the  Virology Radisson).  Parasitology Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:45 18 June 2012  Introduced Pathogens and their Ecological Consequences 5 p.m. Poster take down 6-7:30 p.m. Mississippi River Backwater Cruise

Friday, August 3, 2012 8-9 a.m. Registration 8 a.m. – 5 p.m. Continuing Education Course: Molecular Diagnostic Tests for Aquatic Animal Pathogens: Regulatory Perspectives, Current Methods and Emerging Technologies

For more informaƟon about La Crosse, WI, the meeƟng venues, registraƟon, accommodaƟons and travel arrangements, please visit the website: hƩp://www.uwlax.edu/conted/sh/index.htm

228 Fisheries • Vol 37 No 5• May 2012• www.fisheries.org IN MEMORIAM A Commemoration by His Mark B. Bain (1955-2012) Students and Colleagues Dr. Mark Bain passed away at his home in Lansing, New scientific articles and York, on 8 February 2012 from complications resulting from was the lead author on amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS, Lou Gehrig’s disease). He a respected American spent most of his career in the Department of Natural Resources Fisheries Society text at Cornell University studying fish and invertebrate communi- on aquatic habitat as- ties in lakes, streams, and estuaries in the wildest and most sessment. He served settled places, from the bays of Lake Ontario to the urban banks as an advisor for many of Manhattan. He was recognized worldwide as a leading voice regional, national, and on aquatic systems ecology. international organiza- Born in Gary, Indiana, Mark gained his knowledge of ecol- tions and initiatives. ogy through a B.S. in wildlife resources from West Virginia Mark received numer- University, an M.S. in fisheries science from Virginia Poly- ous awards, including technic Institute and State University, and a Ph.D. in fisheries the Special Achieve- biology from the University of Massachusetts–Amherst, where ment Award from the he worked with Dr. John Finn and Dr. Henry Booke. His doc- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacesetter Award from Argonne toral research, published in Ecology, on streamflow regulation National Laboratory, Star Award from the U.S. Geological Sur- and fish community structure is one of the most cited papers on vey, and President’s Outstanding Educator Award from Cornell the subject. University. He was recognized as one of the top 15 profes- Mark began his career in the Department of Biology at Ball sors by the Cornell University Student Organization. He was a State University, leaving after one year to become an ecolo- member of the American Fisheries Society, Ecological Society gist at Argonne National Lab. In 1986, he became the assistant of America, and American Association for the Advancement of leader of the Alabama Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Science. Unit at Auburn University, where he pioneered a new approach Mark’s passion for research and its application was to measure cover in fish habitat surveys and studied habitat matched by his enthusiasm for engaging students in aquatic use and population characteristics of several southeastern fish ecology and fisheries science. He co-taught Cornell’s stream species. In 1991, Mark moved to Cornell University as the as- ecology course, ranked by students as among the top 15 courses sistant leader for fisheries in the New York Cooperative Fish at the university. Mark was a mentor and role model for under- and Wildlife Research Unit within the Department of Natural graduates, graduate students, and postdoctoral fellows. Many of Resources. He became a tenured professor of systems ecology his students credit him with providing unique opportunities and and was appointed director of the Cornell University Center for responsibilities. He let them make mistakes, with a hearty laugh the Environment, a position in which he served from 2003 to and assurance that everything would work out in the end. His 2007. In 2007 he returned full-time to the department faculty. trust in their abilities gave them the confidence and knowledge Mark’s boundless curiosity and wide-ranging professional to pursue successful careers in the aquatic sciences. interests defined his career. His work integrated fisheries sci- Mark enjoyed fishing and backpacking with his family, ence, aquatic ecology, hydrology, and systems theory. Among cooking gourmet meals, engaging conversation, travel, and Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:45 18 June 2012 his diverse pursuits, Mark developed approaches for habitat woodworking. He is survived by his wife, Jane Barden Bain, evaluation and cumulative impact assessment, conducted stud- also educated in aquatic ecology and currently working for the ies on complex systems theory in bays and lagoons, described Ecological Society of America; children, Gary and Paul; par- impacts to and recovery of fish species in the Hudson River, ents, Sam and Rose; and siblings, Keith, Jeff, Terese, and Sam. and planned ecosystem restoration and conservation projects. He is mourned by countless friends, relatives, and colleagues. His expertise led to collaborations around the world, and dur- Donations in his memory may be made to the ALS Association ing these travels he enjoyed many adventures and made lasting (www.alsa.org). friendships. Even during his battle with ALS, Mark’s commitment to his work never waned. He continued analyzing data, advising Marcia S. Meixler, Assistant Professor, Rutgers University students, collaborating on research projects, and serving the Kristin Arend, Assistant Professor, Lake Superior State University broader scientific community. At the time of his death, he was Katherine Mills, Postdoctoral Research Associate, University of Maine and Gulf of Maine Research Institute working on a book about the science and practice of environ- Barbara A. Knuth, Vice Provost and Dean, Cornell University mental management, and he remained active on the editorial boards of Acta Ecologica Sinica, Environmental Management, Photo credit: Jane Bain and Folia Zoologica. Mark was recognized by his peers for distinction as a scientist, teacher, mentor, and leader. He published over 100

Fisheries • Vol 37 No 5• May 2012 • www.fisheries.org 229 AFS 2012 ANNUAL MEETING Continuing Education Program American Fisheries Society 142nd Annual Meeting, Twin Cities 2012 August 18th – August 19th

The Continuing Education Committee has put together a diverse suite of courses for the 2012 Annual Meeting. The courses cover a variety of topics, ranging from standardization in electrofishing, leading effective technical meetings, digital photography, and statistical concepts for fisheries scientists. When you register for the meeting, please consider taking one or more of these courses or technology workshops. All of them will help increase your professionalism, perspective, and skill set when you return to your job.

LEADERSHIP AT ALL LEVELS IN AFS Dirk Miller, Wyoming Game and Fish Department; [email protected] FREE! This course will focus on helping AFS leaders understand how to work effectively within the AFS governance structure at all levels: Chapter, Section, and Division.

BASIC/INTERMEDIATE GIS FOR FISHERIES BIOLOGISTS Joanna Whittier, University of Missouri; [email protected] Student $125; Member $220; Non-member $250 This course will provide an overview of basic/intermediate GIS skills for fisheries biologists using ArcGIS, including use of existing data, creating your own data, and review of fundamental concepts for GIS.

ADVANCED GIS FOR FISHERIES BIOLOGISTS Joanna Whittier, University of Missouri; [email protected] Student $150; Member $220; Non-member $270 Building on the ‘Basic/Intermediate GIS for Fisheries Biologists’ course, this course will focus on geoprocessing, interpolation, and spatial analysis methods to aid in fisheries monitoring and research.

INTRODUCTION TO PROGRAMMING IN R FOR FISHERIES SCIENTISTS

Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:45 18 June 2012 Matt Catalano, Michigan State University; [email protected] Student $100; Member $150; Non-member $200 This course will introduce the basics of Program R using a command-line interface and examples from fisheries research. Program R is a powerful open-source mathematical and statistical software program gaining popularity in the fisheries and ecological sciences.

Statistical Concepts and Tools for Fisheries Biologists Ken Gerow, University of Wyoming; [email protected] Student $100; Member $150; Non-Member $200 Many working fisheries professionals only periodically engage in the use of statistical concepts and tools. This course will help participants refresh their knowledge of traditional statistics while also learning about contemporary statistical concepts and tools.

230 Fisheries • Vol 37 No 5• May 2012• www.fisheries.org DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY FOR AQUATIC SCIENTISTS Jeremy Monroe, Freshwaters Illustrated; [email protected] Student $75; Member $100; Non-member $150 Participants in this course will learn how to use photography as part of their communication portfolio. The course will cover the importance of photography in aquatic education, science, and outreach; digital equipment, techniques, and workflow; techniques for underwater natural-history photography; and photographic sampling and documentation for science.

SURGICAL PROCEDURES FOR IMPLANTING TRANSMITTERS IN FISHES Cynthia LeDoux-Bloom, UC Davis; [email protected]; California DWR; [email protected] Lisa Gee, USGS, Western Fisheries Research Center; [email protected] Theresa Liedtke, USGS, Western Fisheries Research Center; [email protected] Michelle Rub, NOAA Fisheries, Northwest Fisheries Science Center; [email protected] Student $100; Member $150; Non-Member $200 The goal of this introductory course is to provide knowledge of biotelemetry and implanting transmitters into fishes using principles of veterinary science. This course will have a hands-on component and allow time for participants to seek answers to questions regarding their specific research activities.

HOW TO LEAD AN EFFECTIVE TECHNICAL MEETING Jim Berkson, National Marine Fisheries Service; [email protected] Student $50; Member $75; Non-Member $100 This course will teach you how to be an effective technical meeting leader and is intended for all career stages. Topics include: handling difficult personalities, time budgeting, and reaching meeting objectives.

MAPPING AQUATIC HABITAT OF INLAND FRESHWATER SYSTEMS USING SIDE-SCAN SONAR Thom Litts, Georgia Department of Natural Resources; [email protected] Student $100; Member $150; Non-member $200 This course is an introduction to using the inexpensive Humminbird® Side Imaging system to map and quantify

Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:45 18 June 2012 benthic habitats at the landscape scale. The course includes a practical session covering techniques for geoprocessing sonar imagery and map development within ArcGIS 9.x.

EFFECTIVE SPEAKING WHEN THE HEAT IS ON! Michael E. Fraidenburg, The Cooperation Company; [email protected] Student $25; Member $50; Non-member $75 Participants learn how to deliver their message using six speaking models that are designed to persuade. Use the techniques professional speakers use to get your audience to STOP, LOOK, and LISTEN, even if they don’t want to.

Fisheries • Vol 37 No 5• May 2012 • www.fisheries.org 231 COLLABORATIVE NEGOTIATIONS Michael E. Fraidenburg, The Cooperation Company; [email protected] Student $25; Member $50; Non-member $75 Learn to solve your toughest bargaining challenges and preserve relationships you will need in the future. Get direct, ‘hands-on’ experience building negotiations that will work for you in the present and set the stage for healthier collaborations in the future.

NEW! Power-Based Standardization in Electrofishing James Reynolds, University of Alaska Fairbanks; [email protected] Student $25; Member $50; Non-Member $75 The recent AFS book, Standard Methods for Sampling North American Freshwater Fish, emphasizes the growing importance of sampling standardization in fisheries science and management. Standardization of electrofishing, a common sampling method, requires an understanding of electrical principles, particularly power transfer theory. This course is aimed at professional fisheries personnel who use electrofishing, or supervise electrofishing, and desire to effectively standardize their operations. Upon course completion, participants will understand basic electrical principles as applied to standardized electrofishing, know and appreciate the elements of a standardized program, and be able to demonstrate skill in constructing standard power tables based on field data.

AFS Technology Workshops

VEMCO ACOUSTIC TELEMETRY TECHNOLOGY WORKSHOP Nancy Edwards, VEMCO Division and AMIRIX Systems Inc.; [email protected] Richard Vallee, VP Sales, VEMCO; [email protected] FREE! VEMCO staff will discuss passive and active acoustic technology and how to use the equipment effectively. Potential topics include: Understanding Single Frequency Telemetry, Equipment Overview and Representative Deployments, Detection Performance and Range Limits, VEMCO User Environment (VUE) Software, VR2W Positioning System (VPS,) and Future Product Directions. Participants will help explore problems regarding deployment methods, experimental design, identifying unknown codes, data management, handling and analysis. Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:45 18 June 2012 Now offering our NE miniSUR

miniSUR Features: • Available as expendable or replaceable battery • Blue Tooth interface for download, configuration AND re-programmable • Single Configurable Frequency • Logs 100K + detections • Adjustable gain: configurable detection area • ACT and R-code decoding, both ID and telemetry • Simple deployment methods • Uses AAA Alkaline or NiMH

“41 years working together to make a difference in the world we share” www.sonotronics.com • (520) 746-3322

232 Fisheries • Vol 37 No 5• May 2012• www.fisheries.org COLUMN Guest Director’s Line Frontloading the Science in Anticipation of Environmental Disasters Usha Varanasi School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences and the Department of Chemistry, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195; Email: [email protected] It is a given that every 3–5 years our coasts and oceans hampered our ability to will experience an environmental crisis of epic proportions. In determine what addition- responding to these crises (specifically, major oil spills) we fran- al impact was caused by tically gather thousands of samples from impacted areas as oil the storm or spill. In the mixes with water, moves, and degrades. Under these dynamic past 30 years there have conditions, we try to analyze as many of these samples as pos- been attempts to mount sible to generate hundreds of data reports to calm a concerned systematic nationwide public and occasionally develop new methods on the fly (Krahn monitoring of fish and et al. 1988; Varanasi 1989; Field et al. 1999). While attempting shellfish to determine to advance our knowledge under daunting odds, we try to pub- baseline levels of chemical contaminants, such as polycyclic lish reports on lessons learned and identify gaps in knowledge aromatic compounds derived from fossil fuels, and associ- that must be filled to avoid or better manage the next catastro- ated diseases. But most of these programs are not sustained or phe (Field et al. 1999). This is not the ideal situation in which to are having severe budget shortfalls. It is clear that we need a develop a thoughtful, strategic, and comprehensive knowledge systematic effort to collect and report such information in a base. In addition, the potential for litigation can hinder progress user-friendly manner, and we need a dramatically different ap- and publication of new research funded by the litigating parties. proach to generate revenue and strategies for these programs. Once the fervor and frenzy over the catastrophe subsides and the crisis moves off the center stage, funding and momentum To provide consistent funding for these scientific activities, are cut short and our institutional memories fade. we need to think of a different model than the usual federal or state funding sources, which currently are being severely cut. As a scientist and former science director1 who worked Revenue generation to provide a comprehensive and targeted under these conditions over several decades, I have wondered scientific underpinning, so necessary for thoughtful -manage often whether this is unavoidable. Perhaps it is naïveté on my ment of our waters, needs to be tied to exploration and extraction part, but we ought to get better at responding to each subse- of resources from the very same waters. Considerable invest- quent disaster by continually expanding our knowledge base. ment is made by the industry to develop improved extraction Unfortunately, this is not always the case. technologies and remediation methods. The research is usu- ally conducted under the umbrella of proprietary work. This I believe that we must stop thinking about doing good and is understandable. Nonetheless, each time a permit is granted relevant science “if and when” disasters happen. They are infor drilling for oil in public waters, significant moneys (fees) evitable, and we must ensure that robust scientific inquiry is should be contributed upfront to a national trust fund that could conducted and financially supported between disasters when be independently managed by a public/private coalition.2 The

Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:45 18 June 2012 there are opportunities to expand our scientific and technologi- funds should be made available to scientists from all sectors to cal capacity while improving communication tools so that we investigate potential impacts of an oil spill on human health and are better prepared before the next big one hits us rather than safety as well as impacts on ocean life before a crisis happens. scrambling and often “reinventing the wheel.” Scenario building and development of a long-term strategy of remediation (if the disaster does happen) should be studied and In addition to the lack of consistent funding for frontload- debated in the open, and relevant, new methods should be de- ing of science, we found that during environmental catastrophes veloped and validated beforehand so they can be standardized such as the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska to more recent and used confidently to measure contamination of seafood and events such as Hurricane Katrina and the Deepwater Horizon to assess biological effects of toxic contaminants from a spill. oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico there was no standardized and robust baseline information available about the state of the en- Targeted baseline monitoring should be conducted to deter- vironment where the spill or storm may cause serious damage mine levels of contaminants in waters, sediment, and organisms (Dickhoff et al. 2007; Hom et al. 2008). In the past this lack from the site where drilling is proposed or along the transport of baseline (prestorm or prespill) data on levels of chemical routes of the oil via pipeline and tankers and the region where contaminants in seafood from the affected regions severely 2. I have deliberately not discussed my thoughts in this article about the specifics on how this trust fund should/could be managed, etc., 1. Varanasi was the Science and Research Director of NOAA’s because I did not want to lose focus from the concept that we need to Northwest Fisheries Science Center in Seattle, WA. establish such a fund. Fisheries • Vol 37 No 5• May 2012 • www.fisheries.org 233 trajectories of potential spills are predicted should a disaster toxic hydrocarbons due to inefficient metabolism of hydrocar- occur. Such an approach to ensure that science is planned and bons. This scientific knowledge and established methods to conducted in anticipation of the inevitable next crisis would en- measure polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and metabolites able us to better protect the public and marine life by making were extensively used during the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska environmental decisions wisely. to provide timely information to the affected community about the degree of contamination of the seafood (Field et al. 1999). My experience with major environmental catastrophes Availability of rapid screening methods allowed scientists to such as the Exxon Valdez and Deepwater Horizon oil spills analyze large numbers of seafood samples and communicate has shown that despite the best efforts of dedicated scientists their results broadly and with confidence. Though the cultural and agency staff, serious decisions had to be made with insuf- differences and severe distress experienced by communities ficient scientific information while the nation responded to deep from this risk of spilled oil to their harvests should not be mini- concerns over human safety, seafood contamination, damage mized and provided a grave challenge, scientists working on to marine life, and economic losses. For example, hot water seafood safety during this crisis had a platform from which to cleaning was used on beaches during the Exxon Valdez spill to assist. This was possible, at least for my team, because National remove visible oil slicks from the rocks, which actually further Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) managers damaged fragile marine ecosystems and pushed oil beneath the in the field communicated well with state agencies and worked surface where degradation was considerably slower and the oil directly with affected communities (Field et al. 1999). Regret- still persists after two decades. tably, funding and support for such scientific inquiry slowly declined so that we were not able to expand the knowledge base During the Deepwater Horizon incident, massive amounts to determine uptake, metabolism, and excretion of toxic com- of dispersant were used to break up the oil mass in an attempt pounds when emulsified with various dispersants, before new to protect shorelines and the public. However, to the best of my oil spills, notably the Deepwater Horizon incident. knowledge, scientists in the public sector (specifically NOAA scientists) did not have timely information about the composi- Conducting strategic and comprehensive scientific inquiry, tion of the dispersant used and there were insufficient scientific including hypothesis testing, is not possible during an intense methods or knowledge to measure uptake of dispersant compo- crisis because scientists are often faced with having to answer nents or the effects of emulsified oil on marine life. How such fragmented “questions of the day” and answers often managed a large-scale use of dispersant (1.8 million gallons) would af- as a public relations issue by diverse parties. Much valuable fect the ecosystem of this region was unknown. Consequently, time is lost for the scientists who have the knowledge and broad methods to measure dispersant components had to be devel- understanding of the strengths and limitations of the methods oped under crisis conditions, and very few studies could be and expertise to best interpret and communicate the results. conducted during this dynamic situation to assess the impact of dispersant and oil emulsions on marine life, especially on the Though transferring knowledge gained from an earlier spill early developmental stages known to be sensitive to low levels is not always applicable due to differences in physical proper- of toxicants. It should be common wisdom that during any envi- ties of the oil, location and causes of the disaster, and cultural ronmental crisis, we should apply standardized and established differences of communities, having established methods and methods and known processes rather than frantically develop- processes affected from earlier spills and new knowledge devel- ing new technology and approaches, because time will be of the oped and validated between crises can be extremely valuable. essence and validated methods will generate confidence. Hence, time devoted by scientists will be better used to apply well-established methods and to communicate clearly scientific Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:45 18 June 2012 It may be said that each crisis is different and we can never results to a wide range of audiences in an independent, accu- be truly prepared. Nonetheless, my experience in responding rate, reliable, and consistent manner that rebuilds confidence in to environmental catastrophes has shown that when science seafood advisories and avoids hasty assessment of ecological was frontloaded—that is, when we were equipped with vali- damage in a politically charged and media-intensive atmo- dated, standardized methods and protocols—we were better sphere after an environmental crisis. able to apply successfully this knowledge to aid agencies and communities affected by the oil spill. For example, in the mid- In conclusion, 1980s we had developed considerable knowledge about uptake, metabolism, and effects of toxic hydrocarbons in fish and inver- • Our responses ought to improve with each new disaster, tebrates in marine waters (Varanasi 1989). Our research showed but they rarely do, despite progress in science, technol- that polycyclic aromatic compounds associated with fossil fuels ogy, and communications. do not accumulate in vertebrates (e.g., fish, marine mammals) • Sociopolitical and financial factors, especially when the because of their efficient metabolism in liver and rapid excre- disaster is caused by humans, hamper frank and honest tion of by-products of hydrocarbons (metabolites) in bile. This dialogue and open investigations. It is imperative that scientific knowledge led to the development of rapid screening scientists are objective, thoughtful, independent, and ef- methods to detect hydrocarbon exposure (Krahn et al. 1988). fective spokespersons. Our research also showed that in contrast to fish and mammals, • When science is not frontloaded, conducting good and invertebrates (e.g., shellfish, molluscs) tend to bioacculmulate objective science during a crisis, being responsive to

234 Fisheries • Vol 37 No 5• May 2012• www.fisheries.org public fear and distress, and clearly communicating scientific findings in response to environmental disasters NEW AFS MEMBERS become serious challenges. • It is time to try a different model for funding scientific underpinning that includes targeted baseline informa- Samah Abdelrazek Christopher Fulton Laura Oremland tion, standardized and validated methods, and research Giacomo Abrusci Daniel Fultz Mike Parna and development to improve opportunity for new and Robert Ahrens Kevin Gardner Oliver Patton innovative techniques and approaches. (Note: Establish- Brandon Albrecht Christopher Geach Brandon Peoples ment of this trust fund to frontload science and strategies Bruce Anderson Polly Gibson Kousei Perales does not replace the funds that are allocated or adjudicat- Deena Anderson John Hansen Kellie Pesola ed for mounting an environmental response and natural Charlene Andrade Matthew Hanson Justin Peterson resource damage assessments when a disaster happens.) Jennifer Baez Jocelyn Hatch Karin Petrites • Lastly, there should be consistency in regulatory crite- Blair Baldwin Brian Heise John Pike ria on allowable limits for consumption of contaminated Kristin Baltadonis Rulon Hemingway Nick Porter seafood so there is no confusion in the public’s mind Christopher Bathke Nicholas Heredia Jason Powell with regards to what is safe to consume. A reservoir of Andrew Bearlin Nichelle Heyrend authoritative and objective scientific information needs Travis Raison to be created that is accessible to all interested parties Miranda Bell Dona Horan Daniel Ratterman and the public at large. Reuben Berman Laura Hughes Jon Readon Timothy Bishop Mike Hughes Anna Ricks Such a frontloading of science will provide strong factual Tara Blackman LeRoy Humke Thomas Rosser underpinning before making decisions that could forever alter Cesar Blanco Daniel Huser Carlos Ruiz our coastlines and ocean life. Aaron Bliesner Mike Isel Ann Runstrom Austin Bloom Katy Jay Daniel Russo ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Stefan Bourgoin Michelle Kawaguchi Thomas Scott I sincerely thank the following colleagues who kindly read William Bowden Christopher Kerwin Gabriel Sheoships and commented on this article: Denis Hayes, Bullitt Founda- Shannon Bower Joshua Kilborn Brian Simmons tion; William H. Rodgers Jr., University of Washington Law Logan Breshears Natacha Kramski Shelby Sloan School; and Tom Hom and John E. Stein, Northwest Fisheries Morgan Brizendine Jeffrey Kranyak Lori Smith Science Center, NOAA. Jim Broderick Jade Laycock Eric Smyth Elizabeth Brown Aaron Lechner Charles Steele REFERENCES Maria Bugajski Albert Lewis Marina Steffensen Dickhoff, W.W., T.K. Collier and U. Varanasi. 2007. The seafood Rosemary Burk Jonathan Li Matthew Stillwell “dilemma”—a way forward. Fisheries 32(5):244–246. Nicholas Burnett Thomas Lushinsky Lauren Stoot Field, L.J., J.A. Fall, T.S. Nighswander, N. Peacock, and U. Varanasi, editors. 1999. Evaluating and communicating subsistence seafood Amy Chandos Shireen Maarschalk Angel Suriel safety in a cross-cultural context: lessons learned from the Exxon Morrell Chhay Jennifer Martin Jenny Sutherland Valdez oil spill. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chem- Scott Childers Emily Martinez Asra Toobaie istry, Pensacola, Florida. John Cleveland Philip Mathias Kimberly Tuor Hom, T., T.K. Collier, M.M. Krahn, M.S. Strom, G.M. Ylitalo, W.B. Tyson Clyne Catherine McCalvin Kali Turner Nilsson, R.N. Paranjype, and U. Varanasi. 2008. Assessing seafood

Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:45 18 June 2012 Robert Coalter John McCoy Laura Twardochleb safety in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. American Fisheries Society Symposium 64:73–93. Sean Cross Bryce Mecum Heather Tyrrell Krahn, M.M., C.A. Wigren, R.W. Pearce, L.K. Moore, R.G. Bogar, Peter Crowley Erica Meyers Fabio Vilella W.D. MacLeod Jr., S. Chan, D.W. Brown. 1988. Standard analyti- David Csepp Jeanelle Miller Kristy Wakeling cal procedures of the NOAA National Analytical Facility, 1988: Jenna Davis Mark Miller Lily Wald new HPLC cleanup and revised extraction procedures for organic Brennen DeFiore Andrew Monie Kristina Wantola contaminants. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Sabine Deristin Jose Moody Brian Watson Memo NMFS F/ NWC-153, Seattle, WA. Levi Drake Varanasi, U., editor. 1989. Metabolism of polycyclic aromatic hydrocar- Joseph Morris Neal Wehrwein bons in the aquatic environment. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. Derek Dufault Brett Morris Tracy Wendt Josh Egan Alen Mosley Nathan Wentz Patrick Ely Christopher Nack Sarah Wheeler Michael Ewaschuk Chelsey Nelson Jill Wick Usha Varanasi is an affiliate professor at the School of Aida Farag Kirsten Nelson Drew Wickard Aquatic and Fishery Sciences and the Chemistry Department Ashley Favaro Amanda Netburn Brian Willamson of the University of Washington. She recently retired as di- Holly Fisher Nancy Nordman Tiffani Wilson rector of the National Marine Fisheries Service’s Northwest Ida Flores Gerald Nowak Brian Wisenden Fisheries Science Center. Valerie Fuchs Katrina Olthof Becki Witherow

Fisheries • Vol 37 No 5• May 2012 • www.fisheries.org 235 JOURNAL HIGHLIGHTS Low-Dose Hydrogen Peroxide Application in Closed Recirculat- ing Aquaculture Systems. Lars-Flemming Pedersen, Christopher M. North American Journal of Aquaculture Good, and Per B. Pedersen. 74: 100–106. Volume 74, Number 1, January 2012 Feeding Rate and Frequency Affect Growth of Juvenile Atlantic Spadefish. Jesse Trushenski, Artur Rombenso, Michael H. Schwarz, John Bowzer, Brian Gause, Brendan Delbos, and Luis A. Sampaio. Safety of Aquaflor-Medicated 74: 107–112. Feed to Sunshine Bass. David L. Straus, James D. Bowker, Novel Praziquantel Treatment Regime for Controlling Asian Tape- Molly P. Bowman, Dan Carty, worm Infections in Pond-Reared Fish. Alison C. Iles, Thomas P. Andrew J. Mitchell, and Brad- Archdeacon, and Scott A. Bonar. 74: 113–117. ley D. Farmer. 74: 1–7. Book Review–Aquaculture: An Introductory Text. 74: 118–119. Exploring Soy-Derived Alter- natives to Fish Meal: Using Soy Protein Concentrate and Soy Protein Isolate in Hybrid JOURNAL HIGHLIGHTS Striped Bass Feeds. Patrick Journal of Aquatic Animal Health Blaufuss and Jesse Trushenski. 74: 8–19. Volume 24, Number 1, March 2012

[Communication] Effect of Feeding Rate and Pond Primary Pro- Pathology of Ocular Le- ductivity on Growth of Litopenaeus vannamei Reared in Inland sions Associated with Gas Saline Waters of West Alabama. Luke A. Roy, D. Allen Davis, and Supersaturation in White Gregory N. Whitis. 74: 20–26. Seabass. Jeffrey E. Smiley, Residue Depletion of Tritium-Labeled Ivermectin in the Muscle Mark S. Okihiro, Mark A. Tissues of Aquacultured Atlantic Salmon, Tilapia, and Catfish Drawbridge, and Ronald S. following Oral Treatment. Badar Shaikh, Nathan Rummel, Charles Kaufmann. 24: 1–10. Gieseker, Christie-Sue Cheely, and Renate Reimschuessel. 74: 27–33. Effect of Dietary Vitamin Effects of Live Artemia Nauplii Supplementation for Different E on Cortisol and Glucose Periods on Survival and Growth of Juvenile Signal Crayfish Paci- Responses to Handling fastacus leniusculus in the First Six Months of Intensive Culture. Stress in Juvenile Beluga Álvaro González, Jesús D. Celada, José M. Carral, María Sáez- Huso huso. B. Falahatkar, Royuela, Vanesa García, and Rocío González. 74: 34–38. A. Safarpour Amlashi, and F. Conte. 24: 11–16. Comparative Cost Analysis of Hybrid Striped Bass Fingerling Production in Ponds and Tanks. Patty Eklund, Carole Engle, and The Effect of Temperature and Salinity on the Elimination of Gerald Ludwig. 74: 39–53. Enrofloxacin in the Manila Clam Ruditapes philippinarum. Zhi- Qiang Chang, Ai-Xin Gao, Jian Li, and Ping Liu. 24: 17–21. Influence of Substrate and Salinity on Air-Incubated Gulf Killifish Embryos. M. P. Coulon, C. T. Gothreaux, and C. C. Green. 74: 54–59. Farm Level and Geographic Predictors of Antibiotic Use in Sri Lankan Shrimp Farms. Nalaka Munasinghe, Craig Stephen, Colin Safety of Copper Sulfate to Channel Catfish Eggs. David L. Straus, Robertson, and Preeni Abeynayake. 24: 22–29. Andrew J. Mitchell, Ray R. Carter, Matthew E. McEntire, and James Use of Vaccination against Enteric Septicemia of Catfish and Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:45 18 June 2012 A. Steeby. 74: 60–64. Columnaris Disease by the U.S. Catfish Industry. Julie Bebak and Performance of Spring Chinook Salmon Reared in Acclimation Bruce Wagner. 24: 30–36. Ponds for Two and Four Months before Release. Lance R. Clarke, William A. Cameron, and Richard W. Carmichael. 74: 65–72. Preliminary Assessment of Dietary Mannanoligosaccharides on Growth Performance and Health Status of Gilthead Seabream Effects of Effluents from a Fisheries Research Station on Stream Sparus auratus. Nejdet Gültepe, Olcay Hisar, Semih Salnur, Belgin Water Quality. Suthira Soongsawang and Claude E. Boyd. 74: 73–79. Hoşsu, T. Tansel Tanrikul, and Seyit Aydın. 24: 37–42. [Technical Note] Evaluation of Tannic Acid for Disinfection of Susceptibility of Pacific Herring to Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia Rainbow Trout Eggs. Eric J. Wagner, Randall W. Oplinger, and Mat- Is Influenced by Diet. J. Beaulaurier, N. Bickford, J. L. Gregg, C. A. thew Bartley. 74: 80–83. Grady, A. L. Gannam, J. R. Winton, and P. K. Hershberger. 24: 43–48. Effect of Single or Double Exposures to Hydrogen Peroxide or Effects of Media Ingredient Substitution and Comparison of Iodine on Salmonid Egg Survival and Bacterial Growth. Eric J. Growth of Flavobacterium psychrophilum among Four Media. Wagner, Randall W. Oplinger, and Matthew Bartley. 74: 84–91. Randall W. Oplinger and Eric J. Wagner. 24: 49–57. Laboratory and Production Scale Disinfection of Salmonid Eggs with Hydrogen Peroxide. Eric J. Wagner, Randall W. Oplinger, and Matthew Bartley. 74: 92–99.

236 Fisheries • Vol 37 No 5• May 2012• www.fisheries.org To submit upcoming events for inclusion on the AFS web site calendar, send event name, dates, city, state/province, web address, and contact information to [email protected]. CALENDAR (If space is available, events will also be printed in Fisheries magazine.) Fisheries Events More events listed at www.fisheries.org

DATE EVENT LOCATION WEBSITE May 21–25, 2012 Planning and Executing Successful Rotenone and Utah State University, http://www.fisheriessociety.org/rotenone Antimycin Projects Logan, UT May 27–May 31, Canada’s First National Fish and Wildlife Ottawa, ON, Canada www.afs-oc.org/events.htm 2012 Conservation Congress June 5–7, 2012 National Conference on Engineering and Amherst, Massachusetts http://www.umass.edu/tei/conferences/ Ecohydrology for Fish Passage FishPassage July 2-6, 2012 36th Annual Larval Fish Conference Osøyro, Norway www.larvalfishcon.org

July 9–12, 2012 Algae for the Future: 8th Asia-Pacific Conference Adelaide, Australia www.sapmea.asn.au/apcab2012 on Algal Biotechnology July 9–13, 2012 12th International Coral Reef Symposium Cairns, Qld Australia www.icrs2012.com

July 15–July 19, 10th International Congress on the Biology of Fish Madison, WI conferencing.uwex.edu/conferences/ 2012 icbf2012/index.cfm July 25–27, 2012 International Conference on Fisheries and Aquatic Amsterdam, Netherlands www.waset.org/conferences/2012/am- Sciences sterdam/icfas August 19–23, 142nd Annual Meeting of the American Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN www.afs2012.org 2012 Fisheries Society September 17-21, ICES Annual Science Conference 2012 Bergen, Norway www.ices.dk 2012

The American Fisheries Society Annual Meeting in the Twin Cities in 2012 provides a great opportunity for groups to host workshops, alumni gatherings, technical work groups and other meetings in conjunction with the main conference.

To host an event or gathering at Twin Cities 2012 between August 18 to 23, you need to register with conference planners no later than July 6th. Events will be scheduled on a first come, first served basis.

To register and request information contact: Henry Van Offelen, [email protected]

Or visit the AFS2012 website at www.afs2012.org and click “Associated Meetings” for a registration form.

Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:45 18 June 2012 RECENTLY APPROVED CERTIFIED FISHERIES PROFESSIONALS

The American Fisheries Society’s professional certification program provides a way for fisheries professionals who achieve specific standards of professional competence to be recognized. Congratulations to the following individuals who were recently approved as certified professionals. Approved March 15, 2012

Certified Fisheries Professionals-FPC: Associate Fisheries Professionals: FPA Christopher L. Randolph David Fuller Leonard J. Pitcher John R. Foltz Phil D. Ekema John L. Casteel Dr. J. Wesley Neal James H. McCarthy Todd Stephen Harmon Richard Pyzik Emeritus Status: EM Christopher J. McDonough Donald J. Orth Melissa R. Wuellner Robert Sousa James Allan Chandler Gregory Koonce Christopher D. Carlson Kate Wedemeyer Joel A. Green Donald R. Schreiner, M.S. Winthrop E. Taylor Michael D. Stone David Duvall Kerrie McArthur

Fisheries • Vol 37 No 5• May 2012 • www.fisheries.org 237 ANNOUNCEMENTS Employers: to list a job opening on the AFS online job center submit a position description, job title, agency/company, city, May 2012 Jobs state, responsibilities, qualifications, salary, closing date, and contact information (maximum 150 words) to jobs@fisheries. org. Online job announcements will be billed at $350 for 150 Program Officer –Fisheries word increments. Please send billing information. Listings are World Wildlife Fund (WWF), DC free (150 words or less) for organizations with associate, offi- Temporary cial, and sustaining memberships, and for individual members, who are faculty members, hiring graduate assistants. if space is Closing: Until filled available, jobs may also be printed in Fisheries magazine, free Responsibilities: Temporary Program Officer –Fisheries– 12104. of additional charge. World Wildlife Fund (WWF) the world’s leading conservation organization, seeks a Program Officer for Fisheries. Manages administrative functions to support program and project management. AGFC Deputy Director Develops, plans and implements oversight of new and ongoing Arkansas Game and Fish Commission projects and grants. Reviews performance outcomes and status Permanent of all activities. Evaluates results and makes recommendations. Contributes to the development of regional or programmatic plan- Closing: 5/31 ning. Researches and develops fundraising proposals and plans for Responsibilities: POSITION NO. 22095847 Little Rock Central funding. Monitors and analyzes new technical information, policy Office. Typical functions: Operational activities of assigned Divi- development issues, and trends. Please note: This is a short term sions. Determines overall Division goals and objectives. Develops contract for 3 months. Employee will not be eligible for benefits and implements policies and procedures. Directs the activities of Qualifications: A Bachelor’s degree is required. Degree in related assigned Divisions through subordinate administrators and manag- field: natural resources management, environmental science, inter- ers. Monitors Division programs and service delivery and ensures national development, or conservation policy. Five years experience compliance with state and federal rules and policies. in: program management, biodiversity conservation, or natural re- Qualifications: Minimum qualifications are: a formal education sources management. Experience in fundraising, budgeting, and equivalent of a Master’s degree in biology, zoology, business ad- monitoring donor compliance. Excellent organizational, research, ministration, wildlife management, or related field; and ten years of and writing skills. Strong project management skills and can meet progressive experience in wildlife management, conservation law deadlines. Ability to work independently and under pressure. Works enforcement, forestry or parks management, including at least four effectively as a team member with a wide range of individuals, pos- years’ experience in a supervisory capacity. sibly across cultures and time zones Contact: For additional information visit link. Applications will be Contact: For full job description & requirements please refer to our accepted through May 31, 2012 and must be received by 4:30 p.m. webpage. AA/EOE Women and minorities are encouraged to apply. Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, Attn: Human Resources Di- To apply for the job please visit link and submit cover letter and vision, 2 Natural Resources Drive, Little Rock, AR 72205 resume. Due to the high volume of applications we are not able to Link: http://www.agfc.com respond to inquiries via phone. Email: http://www.worldwildlife.org/careers, job #12104 Link: http://jobs.texastech.edu; When accessing website, please consult requisition number 85072. Email: http://www.worldwildlife.org/careers, job #12104 Assistant Scholar Scientist/Research Faculty Florida State University Coastal and Marine Ph.D. Fishery Scientist Laboratory Intl. Pacific Halibut Commission, WA Permanent Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:45 18 June 2012 PhD Salary: Salary is 100% in years 1 and 2, 75% in year 3, and 50% in year 4 and forward. The remaining salary is met through exter- Salary: Similar to U.S. Federal GS-13 level DOE $87,000-$113,000 nal funding. Responsibilities: To lead stock assessment analyses for the Pacific Responsibilities: The FSUCML interdisciplinary research focuses halibut and its fishery. Develops stock assessments in modern stock on coastal and marine issues of ecological importance that provides assessment programming languages (ADMB, R, C++). Supervises the scientific basis for policy decisions. The ideal candidate’s ex- development of harvest policy and biometric analyses. Job is a mix- pertise would emphasize ecological processes related to the local ture of independent projects, collaborative work, and interaction environments, especially in the area of fisheries ecology. with regional fisheries management bodies and agencies. Qualifications: Highly motivated individual with notable research Qualifications: Requires competence in mathematics and statistics, achievements, the ability to develop a well-funded independent re- strong skills in scientific computing, and the ability to communicate search program, and a commitment to excellence in outreach. Must well with other scientists, agency officials, and the public. Strong have PhD. credentials, demonstrated experience, and peer-reviewed publication record in stock assessment and quantitative analysis are rated Contact: Dr. Felicia C. Coleman, Director, FSUCML at email be- skills. U.S. citizenship not required low and link below. Include a cover letter, CV, research statement, and the names and e-mail addresses of three references. Email: Contact: Director, IPHC, 2320 West Commodore Way Suite 300, [email protected] Seattle WA, USA. 98199-1287; [email protected] Link: https://jobs.fsu.edu Link: http://www.iphc.int

238 Fisheries • Vol 37 No 5• May 2012• www.fisheries.org Fisheries Biologist/Aquatic Ecologist Fisheries Policy Specialist Cardno ENTRIX, CA Environmental Defense Fund / Raleigh, NC Permanent Permanent Responsibilities: Cardno ENTRIX is seeking a Fisheries Biologist/ Responsibilities: Raleigh, NC – The Fisheries Policy Specialist – Aquatic Ecologist to work with a multidisciplinary team of accom- Southeast will be responsible for implementation of area specific plished biologists, hydrologists, geologists, engineers and planners tactics, associated with strategies on commercial catch shares and on a variety of projects in California and the western United States. other related commercial programs, which will bring these strate- Responsibilities include, but are not limited to: Writing small re- gies to fruition. This position will report directly to the Senior ports, scopes of work and sections for proposals and large reports Conservation Manager – Southeast Region. Management of tasks while working with and overseeing a small Under the overall direction of the Gulf and Southeast Oceans Pro- team Conducting aquatic related field studies and assisting on other gram Regional Director, and direct supervision of the Southeast studies Data assimilation using Microsoft Excel and other programs Senior Conservation Manager, the Fisheries Policy Specialist will Training and mentoring less experienced staff work with other Oceans team members to ensure the Gulf and Qualifications: Please visit our website to view learn more and/or Southeast Region’s goals and objectives are met. For a complete job to apply at below link. description and to apply, please follow the link provided. Contact: Peggy Dunkley, [email protected] Link: http://hire.jobvite.com/j/?cj=o9UcWfwV&s=Fisheries.org Link: https://www.ultirecruit.com/TBE1000B/Jobboard/ JobDetails.aspx?__ID=*19BB24C058271D3F Scientist I – PD Observer Program Ocean Associates, Anchorage, AK Permanent Salary: $26.54/hour. Excellent benefits. Travel. Responsibilities: Ocean Associates seeks a Scientist I to support the NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Alaska Fisheries Sci- ence Center, Fisheries Monitoring and Analysis Division in Anchorage. Duties include: Coordinating inventorying, documenting, tracking, preparation, check-in, and check-out of observer gear located in Anchorage with the FMA Division (Division) gear manager and Seattle staff. Organizing, filing, and cataloging observer data sets and biological samples according to standard protocols. Conducting standard and ad-hoc data quality control checks on data collected by commercial groundfish fishery observers. Conducting and documenting mid-cruise debriefings as required by Division protocols. Conducting debriefing interviews with returning observers to ensure that the Division’s established data collection procedures were properly followed during observer deployments to commercial fishing vessels and processing facilities. Assist training staff with tasks including but not limited to: preparation of training room and materials, correcting homework assignments and exams, and assisting with training activities. Qualifications: Incumbent’s minimum experience or background requirements include: Bachelor Degree in fisheries, biological sciences, or natural resource management and 3 years of experience, or a Masters degree and one year of experience. Prior experience as a North Pacific Groundfish Observer or as a member of the Programs staff. Contact: [email protected] Link: http://www.oceanassoc.com/Jobs/jobslist.html AFS Seeks Journal Editor

Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:45 18 June 2012 AFS seeks a scientist with a broad perspective on fisheries to serve as editor of Transactions of the American Fisheries Society (TAFS). Editor must be committed to fast-paced deadlines, and would be appointed for a five-year renewable term which begins September 2012. Duties include: 1. Deciding on the suitability of contributed papers, and advising authors on what would be required to make contributions publishable, using advice of associate editors and reviewers. Reviewing papers for scientific accuracy as well as for clarity, readability, and interest to the broad fisheries community; 2. Soliciting manuscripts to ensure broad coverage; 3. Setting editorial standards for TAFS in keeping with the objectives of the publication in ac- cordance with AFS policies, and guidance provided by the Publications Overview Committee and the TAFS editorial board; 4. Making recommendations to enhance the vitality and prestige of the Journal.

To be considered, send a current curriculum vitae along with a letter of interest explaining why you want to be the Journal editor by e- mail to [email protected]. To nominate a highly qualified colleague, send a letter of recommendation to the same e-mail address.

Note: Editors receive an honorarium and support to attend the AFS Annual Meeting.

Fisheries • Vol 37 No 5• May 2012 • www.fisheries.org 239 349 AFS Fisheries 1C 03/01/12 05/15/12

Water Quality Meters Scales Fish Measuring Boards Stealth Boats Data Loggers Nesting Boxes

And have for more than 60 years. Our 720+ page catalog and easy-to-use web Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:45 18 June 2012 Yeah. site features thousands of products, and we still back each one with our 100% Satisfaction Guarantee. Call 800-360-7788 or go online to order your FREE We do that. catalog today.

FORESTRY SUPPLIERS

AllMedia_2012.indd 10 12/29/11 4:04 PM

240 Fisheries • Vol 37 No 5 • May 2012• www.fisheries.org Advances in Fish Tagging and Marking Technology Jeremy R. McKenzie, Bradford Parsons, Andrew C. Seitz, R. Keller Kopf, Matthew Mesa, and Quinton Phelps, editors

560 pages, hardcover List price: $79.00 AFS Member price: $55.00 Item Number: 540.76C Published May 2012

TO ORDER: Online: www.afsbooks.org

American Fisheries Society c/o Books International P.O. Box 605 Herndon, VA 20172 Phone: 703-661-1570 Fax: 703-996-1010 Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:45 18 June 2012

Fish marking and tracking is a fundamental tool for fisheries management and research. In recent years the technologies and analytical procedures available for marking and monitoring fisheries have evolved. The 31 chapters in this volume include papers on integrated approaches, conventional tagging, acoustic tags and arrays, radio telemetry, chemical and biological markers, and archival and pop-up satellite tags.

This book will be appreciated by both fisheries scientists and managers for its coverage of many of the important advances in fish tagging technologies of the past two decades, the methods used to analyze data generated by these technologies, and the underlying management needs and objectives that only fish marking and tagging can fulfill. ® Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:45 18 June 2012

Model 300 Micro Logger data as accessed via netbook.