Fisheries Management Section of the American Fisheries Society

NEWSLETTER VOL. 18 #2 SUMMER 1999

? President's Message By now most of you have heard that AFS has hired a new Executive Director. On May 10, Gus Rassam became the fifth ED of the American Fisheries Society. Gus comes to AFS with 12 years of experience in association management and a strong background in publication management and electronic communications. I am excited by our choice and have full confidence in Gus’s ability to lead AFS into the new millennium. Gus was hired after an extensive international search. The search committee was formed at the Annual Meeting in Hartford and consisted of an AFS past-president, current president and 1st vice-president, a Division president, Section president, the architect of our new Strategic Plan, and AFS’s Director of Finance, with the acting ED as a non-voting member. Clearly a diverse and critical group. Sixteen applications were reviewed and rated by each member using an objective numerical ranking system. Six applicants were asked to interview with one declining for personal reasons. My original impression was that Mr. Rassamwas our token non-fisheries professional. After the interview, my impression was simply “wow.” Gus and another individual clearly separated themselves from the other interviewees but the search committee had difficulty coming to consensus on which to make our initial offer to. The strengths and weaknesses of the top two candidates were presented to the Governing Board at the Midyear meeting in early March and we were given approval to negotiate with both

candidates. We negotiated with the other individual first due largely to his fisheries background. We were unable to negotiate a contract mainly for non-financial reasons. Fortunately, we were able to reach a contract agreement with Gus. Trained in the geosciences, Rassam has a Master of Science degree from Miami University (Ohio) and a Ph.D. degree from the University of Minnesota. He has done graduate study at Sorbonne University in Paris, been a Fulbright Scholar, and taken business courses in Washington D.C. Upon completion of his doctorate in 1967, Gus spent 19 years as a petroleum geologist, database developer, and teacher in the United States and France. In 1987, he became Director of Marketing and Information Services and Assistant Director of Publications of the American Geophysical Union, eventually becoming Electronic Publications Manager. He joined the staff of the Optical Society of America in 1994 as Director of Publications. Under Gus’s leadership the publication staff at OSA expanded to 37 with a budget of $8 million, annually producing 7 journals and 20 books. During 1997-98, Gus served as a member of a three-person “executive director team” during a leadership gap at OSA. In addition to remaining in charge of publications, Gus was given responsibility for program development, marketing, customer service, and international relations--all of which he retained after a new executive director was named. Gus is not a fisheries professional, but he is a scientist. Does that affect his

ability to lead AFS? Certainly in the areas of issue advocacy, Gus will have to do his homework and rely on assistance from members initially. Much of the policy input asked of AFS is in written form. Clearly written testimony will be easy to deal with. Gus in an extensive reader, is “data-driven”, and recognizes his short-comings in this area. After a short transition period, I have no doubts that Gus will be up to speed on all pertinent issues. At the recent Governing Board meeting, three days of discussions were held on issues facing AFS. Very little time was spent on legislative issues. Rather financial and membership issues dominated discussions. Gus’s association management background gives him the experience and ability to meet these challenges. There are assets that not being from a fisheries or AFS background bring to the job. Gus will have no preconceptions or agendas. He will certainly be better equipped to “think outside the box.” Gus is familiar and comfortable with the relationship that should exist between the Governing Board, staff, members and the Executive Director. During the interview, Gus had several innovative ideas as to how AFS should deal with its current financial situation. Yet when asked if he would feel comfortable devoting a majority of his time to financial matters, he stated that his initial responsibility should be to meet the members and learn of their concerns for the Society. We are also losing our Director of Publications with Bob Kendall’s retirement. Gus’s publication management background will ensure a smooth transition and the hiring of a competent replacement for Bob. SEE PRESIDENT'S page 11

2

articles

Fishery biologists, at least in northern states, still find utility in aging fish scales (especially for younger fish). To date, there has been no standard “a” value (i.e., the y-intercept for the body length-scale radius relationship used for Lee’s modification of the direct proportion method for back-calculation of length-at-age estimates) proposed for sauger. Carlander (1982) proposed a standard “a” value for rock bass, green sunfish, pumpkinseed, warmouth, bluegill, smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, white crappie, black crappie, yellow perch and walleye. Justification for the standardization of “a” values can be found in Carlander (1982). Carlander amassed a data set of observed “a” values for a number of populations, and then used a central tendency as his recommended value. Some biologists have used the walleye standard “a” value when back-calculating length-at-age estimates for sauger. However, walleye and sauger are different species with different patterns of growth. In addition to being separate species, there is no single mode in the data used by Carlander (1982) to recommend the walleye standard “a” value of 55. Furthermore, the mean and median for the data used by Carlander (1982) are 45 and 46, respectively. Therefore Dave Willis and I solicited data for walleye and sauger in an attempt to provide the management community with standard “a” values for assessing growth rates of these two species from scales. We graciously thank those individuals who contributed data. We received data on 516 walleye populations from 17 states and one province. The central tendency of “a” values for the entire 516 populations was 50 mm (mean = 50, median = 51 and

Update on Percid Body Length-Scale Radius Intercept

mode =50). However, calculated “a” values for individual populations are highly influenced by the size and length range of fish collected. Therefore, we also determined the central tendency of “a” values for walleye populations that had an extended length range (? 450 mm), contained at least one small (<200 mm) walleye, and had a high (? 0.9) correlation coefficient between body length and scale radius. The central tendency of “a” values for this restricted data set (N = 81) was 40 (mean = 39, median = 39, mode = 50). Thus, it appears that 40 or 45 mm is a more appropriate standard “a” value for walleye. In addition, Priegel (1964) found the first scales on the caudal peduncle of 24-mm (total length) walleyes and fully scaled walleyes at 45 mm. We are hesitant to make a strong, formal recommendation for a change in the standard “a” value for walleye at this time because these data have not yet been through the peer review process. We received data on 23 sauger populations from six states. The mean and median “a” values for this data set are 85 and 69 mm, respectively. However, no single mode exists in this data set. We are unable to recommend a standard “a” value based on such a small sample size. Thus, we are making a plea for additional sauger data. We would be pleased to receive 1) "a" values for the body length-scale radius relationship that have been computed for sauger populations, 2) measurements of scale radius and total fish length for individual sauger by population (the only caveat is that all scale measurements were taken at the same magnification), or 3) scales (or scale impressions) with total length of fish at time of scale collection for sauger from

separate populations. We would appreciate any assistance and will be certain to communicate results. Scales and data can be sent to: Kevin Pope, Assistant Professor Department of Range, Wildlife, and Fisheries Management, Box 42125, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas 79409-2121 Phone: 806-742-2843 E-mail: kpope@ttu.edu References: Carlander, K. D. 1982. Standard

intercepts for calculating lengths from scale measurements for some centrarchid and percid fishes. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 111:332-336.

Carlander, K.D. 1997. Handbook of freshwater fishery biology, Volume 3. Iowa State University Press, Ames.

Priegel, G.R. 1964. Early scale development in the walleye. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 93:199-200.

Schell, S. A. 1995. Age and growth of Ohio River sport fish. Final Report, Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Project 6-69-P-1 through F-69-P-2. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife, Athens, Ohio.

3

articles

Missouri Watershed Information Network Becomes a

Reality As many of you know, Joe G. Dillard, Past-President of AFS retired from the Missouri Department of Conservation in April 1998 and went to work for the University of Missouri as coordinator for a new project entitled, “Missouri Watershed Information Network” or more commonly know as MoWIN. He submitted the following report of progress. Want to know what the acronym MOAFS stands for? How about the acronym MOTWS or AFS? Where you can find financial resources for doing a better job of watershed stewardship? Which meetings and events are scheduled? Or, you may want to know what water quality projects are ongoing or planned for your watershed, or what the current events are, or who are the local contacts. The answers to these questions and much more will soon be available from the Missouri Watershed Information Network. The idea for a watershed information clearinghouse was one objective of a Watershed Stewardship Workshop held in Columbia, Missouri in April 1996. At the workshop a majority of the 162participants embraced the clearinghouse concept. Later, a post-workshop survey revealed an almost unanimous feeling for a centralized tracking system for the many and varied ongoing watershed and water quality programs and initiatives. By June 1996, the Water Quality Focus Team of the University of Missouri Extension Division assumed leadership to explore the idea. The University granted $10,000 for project development, and organized a task force representing state and federal agencies and several non-

governmental organizations to further develop the concept. MoWIN is being established to assist individuals, governmental and private agencies, schools and other groups in locating and accessing information about Missouri’s watersheds. The goal is tohelp citizens increase their knowledge about current watershed conditions and best management practices to improve the state’s water quality. MoWIN is unique in that it will emphasize people, activities, and education, not just data about watersheds. The intent is to provide what the clients have already indicated they want. It will provide “a first point of contact” for people seeking information and data on watershed projects, activities and initiatives. It will consolidate widely scattered information into a standardized system for all to use, and avoid duplication of effort among agencies saving both time and money. MoWIN is a true partnership effort which is currently supported by 23 General Operating Partners (including MOAFS) from various segments of Missouri’s natural resources community. MoWIN is located on the Columbia Campus of the University of Missouri in the Agricultural Engineering Building. You may contact MoWIN by phone (573/882-0085), fax (573/884-5650), email (dillardj@missouri.edu) , mail (205 Ag Engr. Bldg.), Toll Free at 1-877 H2O SHED (426-7433), or visit the MoWIN web site (be sure to visit Acronym City - current Population 464) http://outreach.missouri.edu/mowin/ . I know that Joe welcomes your ideas, comments and suggestions for MoWIN. Paul Michaletz North Central Division Representative

Stocking Sub-adult Largemouth Bass: An Attempt to Meet Angler

Catch Expectations at Carr Creek Lake, Kentucky

Abstract: In response to angler dissatisfaction with the largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides fishery at Carr Creek Lake, minimum length limits were increased from 12.0 to 15.0 inches in 1991 and a pellet-reared largemouth bass sub-adult (mean length = 11.4-12.4 in) stocking program was started in 1993. Anglers expected an increase in catch rates of 12.0 in and larger largemouth bass from 0.24 to 1.18 fish/h along with increased harvest rates from 0.01 to 0.06 fish/h. Fin-clipped largemouth bass were stocked during the fall of 1993 and 1994 and in the spring of 1996 and 1997 at densities of 9.8 to 10.2 fish/acre. The stocked largemouth bass resulted in an immediate increase in both the population and the catch and release portion of the angler's creel. Differences in angler catch rates were detected, based on the time of the year fish were stocked. Angler catch rate expectations were approached by spring stockings (1.01 fish/h), but not from the fall-stocked fish (0.58 fish/h). No increases were observed in harvest rates as a result of the stocking program. Survival of the stocked largemouth bass was impacted by illegal harvest and mortality associated with the catch and release of the highly vulnerable stocked bass. Even though the stocked largemouth bass did not result in benefits to the fishery in terms of harvest, they did result in a cost/benefit ratio of 1:9 for the catch and release fishery. The stocking of sub-adult bass protected by a minimum length limit has angler catch and release benefits, but sub-adult bassmust be stocked annually for benefits to continue. Stocking programs of this nature should be considered only for social reasons since long-term improvements did not occur to either the fishery or the population.

4

articles

Management of Largemouth Bass at Kentucky and Barkley

lakes, Kentucky Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides populations declined in Kentucky and Barkley lakes following a severe drought during December 1984 -October 1988 and below normal rainfall in three of four years during 1989-1992. Regression models developed for both reservoirs indicated that recruitment of largemouth bass to age 1 was positively related to the electrofishing catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) of large age-0 bass and negatively related to annual rainfall amounts and the CPUE of all sizes of age-0 largemouth bass. These variables explained 73% of the variation in CPUE of age-1 bass at Barkley Lake and 60% at Kentucky Lake. We also developed regression models to estimate the recruitment of largemouth bass to the fishery at age 5 and older. Recruitment to the fishery at Kentucky Lake was positively related to the CPUE of age-1 bass and negatively related to reservoir discharge. This model explained 52% of the variation in recruitment to age 5 and older largemouth bass. Recruitment to age 5 and older fish at Barkley Lake was positively related to the CPUE of age-1 bass and rainfall and negatively related to reservoir discharge. The model developed at Barkley Lake explained 82% of the variation in recruitment of largemouth bass to the fishery. The models predicted that the largemouth bass fisheries at both reservoirs would decline through 2001 under the current angling regulations, which include a 356-mm minimum length limit and one fish less than 356-mm total length allowed in the angler's creel. We used these models, in consultation with the public, to change length limits to a 381-mm minimum length limit in an attempt to moderate the expected declines in older fish.

Heritage Trout: A New Program for Managing California’s Native

Trout

David C. Lentz California Department of Fish and Game,

Heritage and Wild Trout Program 1701 Nimbus Road, Suite C, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670.

916-358-2831 savagetrout@compuserve.com

The California Department of Fish and Game uses several strategies in its programs for trout management. Primarily these strategies include reliance on self-sustaining populations or on augmentation with hatchery-produced trout. Since 1972, the Department’s Wild Trout Program has coordinated the management of lakes and streams specifically for wild trout. Through this program, 30 stream reaches and three lakes have been designated as “Wild Trout Waters” by the Fish and Game Commission. These waters provide anglers the opportunity to fish environmentally productive waters and experience quality angling over trout populations, which are minimally impacted by angling mortality. Legislation in 1979 added to the Wild Trout Program the requirement of annual recommendations to the Fish and Game Commission for implementing special regulations for catch-and-release trout angling. By 1999, growth in “wild-trout” and “catch-and-release” waters has reached over 1,050 miles of stream and 19 lakes. Another trout management strategy has been the protection and restoration of the State’s native trout forms, several of which are federally listed as threatened species. Over 20 years of native trout restoration work has led to increased opportunity for angling on these restored trout populations. In 1999, the Department will implement the “Heritage Trout” Program, emphasizing angling opportunities for

native trout and education and outreach activities to inform the public about the rich diversity of California’s native trout. One of the Heritage Trout Program’s goals is to build public support for further native trout restoration- work that is essential to perpetuate this component of the state’s natural heritage. A brochure is available from the Department of Fish and Game which describes the current status of the Heritage Trout Program in more detail. Contact David Lentz at the above address for more information.

LOWER SNAKE RIVER DAMS On April 6, 1999, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power held an oversight field hearing in Hood River, OR, on the process for determining the future of the4 lower Snake River dams. On April 15, 1999, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) released a draft scientific analysis on options for recovery of ESA-listed salmon along the Snake River. Under certain assumptions, NMFS concludes that drawdown or breaching of the four lower Snake River dams may be the most “risk-averse” alternative. However, significant uncertainties are associated with their projections, and the report does not recommend a preferred course of action nor does it reflect a policy decision. The report “An Assessment of Lower Snake River Hydrosystem Alternatives on Survival and Recovery of Snake River Salmonids” is available at: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov.

5 issue feedback

Issue Background: The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and other Federal agencies have for the last 20-30 years made efforts to define or re-define their role in fisheries, both on their own agency land, and along side of the States in inter-jurisdictional waters. State fisheries agencies have often reacted negatively to these efforts by the Federal agencies. In some instances the States have declined to cooperate with, or even allow, fish management efforts by the Federal staff in waters where the State has the management authority. The Issues: In this era of "Ecosystem-based Management", what advice do you have for Federal agencies on how to define their fisheries management roles, and on how to successfully work with the States in developing a mutually constructive Federal role in fisheries resource management?

Doug Nygren Chief, Fisheries Section Kansas Dept. of Wildlife and Parks Kansas has a long history of cooperation with federal agencies with fisheries responsibilities, particularly the Fish and Wildlife Service, Corps of Engineers, and the Forest Service. Most recently, Kansas has been involved in inter-jurisdictional fisheries management of paddlefish in the Arkansas River basin working jointly with FWS and the State of Oklahoma. This cooperative venture has led to markedly increased densities of paddlefish in the Grand (Neosho) River and reintroduction to Kansas' lower Arkansas River. Kansas is currently working with botanists from the Corp of Engineers to improve aquatic habitat in El Dorado Reservoir. If successful, this project promises to be one of the biggest advances in reservoir management in Kansas's history. I believe the states should take the lead role in recreational fisheries management and should expect support from federal agencies in achieving management goals. Kansas, like most states, has been very successful in managing sport fisheries using fishing license dollars and Sportfish Restoration Program funding. The federal role I would like to see for the future is one of problem solving. How do we continue sportfish management programs while at the same time protecti

time protecting species that are threatened, endangered, or in need of conservation? I believe these two goals are attainable, but it will take desire by both parties to work together to minimize conflicts. Also, federal agencies need to take stock of their individual efforts to improve recreational fishing stemming from the President's Executive Order called the Recreational Fisheries Stewardship Initiative, and the National Recreational Lake Study Commission. In Kansas, there has been little new opportunity for anglers created by these two federal actions to date. A renewed emphasis on customer service should be balanced with the efforts of federal agencies in the undertaking of their assigned primary activities whether that be threatened and endangered species management, flood control, forest products, etc. Marion Conover Fisheries Chief Iowa Dept. of Natural Resources Here's my take on advice I have for Federal agencies on how to define their fisheries management roles, and how to successfully work with the States in developing a mutually constructive Federal role in fisheries resource management. Federal agencies will be most successful if

they work with their state partners in determining fisheries management priorities on non-federal lands. There are strong state's rights issues that will come to head if management decisions are made unilaterally by federal agencies on non- federal lands. States must be willing to work with a strongfederal fisheries partner. We need to assist federal agencies in identifying those areas where a federal hand is needed and then work closely with them to achieve mutual results. A couple of years ago, the USFWS conducted stakeholder meetings in many of the states. This was a good step towards identifying issues of concern and focus areas for management effort at the local level. Many of the focus areas, however, that I heard discussed at the meeting held in Iowa are clearly the responsibility of the state, not the FWS or any other federal agency. There are, however, many areas of need for a stronger federal fisheries partner here in Iowa. The report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Role and Responsibilities for Recreational Fishing, issued by the Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council in 1996, identifies seven responsibilities for USFWS _______________________ See Conover cont… page 6

6

Issue feedback

Don Gabelhouse Nebraska Game and Parks Commission Federal agencies can be most effective by serving as organizers, facilitators and sources of funding for inter-jurisdictional fisheries issues (e.g., MICRA). Today, I would be happy if federal agencies, particularly the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, even considered or cared about fish and fisheries management as practiced by state fish and wildlife agencies. It might be appropriate to rename the agency the U.S. Waterfowl Refuge Service. The only fish that seem to matter to most Feds are T/E species. The ecosystem-based management approach, as practiced by the Feds, has become so tunnel-visioned regarding T/E species that it has evolved into single-species management. Sport fish species and anglers have become ignored components of aquatic ecosystems in the eyes of some federal agencies. Sport fish generate tremendous economic and social benefits for our society. If they want to truly be PARTNERS, the Feds need to stop bailing out of hatcheries and other sport fish projects and demonstrate concern for fish that aren't threatened or endangered. Norm Stucky Fisheries Division Administrator Missouri Department of Conservation The challenges we face in aquatic resource conservation/management are simply too formidable to allow for turf guarding. In spite of occasional differences in management philosophies,

we must work to establish and maintain a strong partnership between state and federal agencies. I believe that developing a Memorandum of Understanding which clearly defines agency roles and expectations can be helpful in this regard. Access construction is certainly one area where states can work together with federal agencies. In Missouri, more than 50% of our angling occurs on federal projects where fisheries’ management is not even an authorized project purpose. The most important advice I could offer would be for the federal government to aggressively work with state agencies to seek a post-authorization change to include fisheries management as an authorized project purpose. If this could be accomplished, I believe the fisheries in many of our large rivers and impoundments could realize enormous benefits. Terry Steinwand North Dakota Game and Fish Dept. The issue of federal involvement or state involvement in fisheries management always appears to be one of turf protection. State and federal agencies work with the resource but have different missions-federal primarily being native, threatened and endangered species while state agencies primarily work with recreational species. Although these can be similar they are often times put at odds. The best advice to be given is to communicate. Responsibilities of each entity needs to be understood. After these two areas are properly and completely discussed and understood the agencies can partition duties that benefit

the resource and still meet the mission of each entity. Good aquatic habitat benefits both recreational and non-recreational species. State personnel also understand if a species becomes listed as threatened or endangered it may impact management of recreational species. A more formal approach is to develop a Memorandum of Understanding where the responsibility of each federal and state entity is discussed and documented. Again, the primary purpose is communication. No one likes issues or philosophies forced upon them and if either entity acts in that manner the result will be negative. Conover cont… involvement in recreational fisheries management. This document was put together by the federally-chartered Council and is fully supported by the Service's recreational fisheries constituents. Prioritization of programs directed at these responsibilities would go a long way towards building credibility of the Service with the States. One of the biggest needs in fisheries is a nationwide fisheries habitat management plan. I would liken this to the North American Waterfowl Management Plan that has been so successful in elevating the importance of waterfowl habitat through a coordinated ecosystem wide approach. Much the same is needed for the interjurisdictional fishes found in our major river systems in this country. I believe federal agencies with fisheries management responsibilities would be successful in working with state partners if they would coordinate and support efforts to restore wetland, floodplain, and aquatic habitats for fish on interjurisdictional waters.

7

issue feedback

Dennis Unkenholz Fisheries Chief South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks Dept. Ecosystem-based management seems to be the "buzz word" these days but do we really think that way? My sense is that we still focus on species or a group of species and try to fix things from that perspective. Watershed approach to fisheries management should be the focus of all if success is to be achieved. All agencies, not just Federal agencies, should re-define their roles, authorities, and responsibilities. This information should be communicated with other agencies and interested users within the watershed in question. This collective group of responsible agencies and interested user groups can then define issues and appropriate strategies. Public involvement is a must and should include non-governmental groups as well as all levels of government. This will insure ownership of the watershed planning process output and set the tone for implementation of strategies. Agencies of all types should work to develop healthy and productive partnerships that are working toward common goals and objectives. Resources can be pooled, information shared and all interests can be served throughout the watershed. Recognition of jurisdictional limitations should be discussed and understood by all the players. This will minimize misunderstandings and facilitate productive working partnerships. Ron Payer Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources There is clearly more work to do than resource agencies can hope to accomplish within existing staff and budget constraints. There is a need to cooperate and work together to leverage funds and share these available resources to provide the most effective overall resource management.

Most states have management authority over waters within their respective boundaries, including most waters on federal lands. Problems have arisen when federal agencies conduct fish management activities without consulting or coordinating with the state. Some of this work has been in direct conflict with state activities, including stocking fish of inappropriate genetic background, which has caused conflict and tension between agencies. It would be beneficial to have at least annual coordination meetings. Based on respective agency authorities, goals and

objectives, available resources, and specific or unique expertise, roles could be defined and work plans and data shared. Federal efforts should complement, not duplicate, state efforts. Necessary work protocols could be worked out with the understanding that work would be confined to agreed upon plans. Working together does not mean giving up management responsibilities, but does mean that we accomplish more for fish and the aquatic resource.

Editor's note: All income from the sale of advertising goes toward publication of this newsletter. Anyone wishing to advertise in the FMS newsletter should contact Brian L. Sloss at 618-549-7761 (blsloss@siu.edu).

8

articles

Multiple Effects of Common Carp on Aquatic Ecosystems

In North America, the common carp (Cyprinus carpio) has generally been considered a pest species. Since its introduction into U.S. waters in the 1800’s, carp have been blamed for destroying submerged vegetation and increasing water turbidity. However, a great deal of the evidence against carp is circumstantial and it is difficult to separate the effects of this benthivore from other forms of habitat degradation. Nonetheless, aquatic resource managers have invested a great deal of effort in trying to remove carp from invaded systems. Removal techniques have included trap netting, electrofishing, commercial and recreational fishing, gill netting, toxicants, and water level control. Unfortunately, these techniques often are unsuccessful in completely removing carp, and this prolific species usually is able to quickly re-colonize treated areas. To formulate appropriate management strategies, specific information about the kinds of effects that carp have on invaded systems are needed, and alternatives to traditional removal techniques must be found. We used pond experiments to clarify the effects of carp on an aquatic ecosystem and to test a potential mitigation technique. Clay-bottom ponds located at the Max McGraw Wildlife Foundation in Dundee, Illinois were divided with plastic into sixteen 0.06 hectare enclosures. Each pond contained four treatments which were randomly assigned to an enclosure. The four treatments were: 1) carp and a plastic mesh substrate cover, 2) carp and no substrate cover, 3) a substrate cover and no fish, and 4) a control with no fish or substrate cover. The aim of this experiment was to quantify the effects of carp on phytoplankton, nutrients, turbidity, aquatic macrophytes, and aquatic macroinvertebrates, and to test the idea of using a plastic mesh substrate cover to diminish the effects of carp. The plastic mesh is designed to prevent carp

from disturbing bottom sediments and uprooting aquatic macrophytes. Water samples were taken every two weeks with a tube sampler (July-September 1997) and analyzed for chlorophyll aconcentration, total nitrogen and phosphorus, and turbidity. Aquatic macroinvertebrate and macrophyte biomass was measured by taking stovepipe samples every four weeks (September-October 1997). Additionally, aquatic macrophyte percent cover was measured by recording the presence or absence of vegetation along transects. These experiments showed a clear effect of carp on some environmental variables but not on others. Elevated levels of total phosphorus were found in enclosures that contained carp, however, no effects were found on total nitrogen concentration. All treatments that contained carp had the highest turbidity, whether or not a mesh cover was present. Enclosures with carp were very cloudy, whereas treatments without fish contained highly transparent water. However, carp did not have a clear effect on chlorophyll a concentration. Chlorophyll a concentrations tended to be higher in carp treatments, but high variability in the data obscured any treatment differences. Lack of a treatment effect on chlorophyll asuggests that the increase in turbidity in carp enclosures was due primarily to the resuspension of bottom sediments, not phytoplankton blooms. Aquatic macrophyte cover and biomass was lowest in carp-stocked enclosures, intermediate in treatments with carp and a mesh cover, and highest in treatments without carp. Carp did not eliminate macrophytes from their enclosures, but instead, created a very patchy distribution of vegetation along the bottom. Diversity of macrophytes was lower in treatments with carp. Of the aquatic macrophyte taxa present in the

ponds (chara, American pondweed, leafy pondweed, sago pondweed, southern naiad), chara was the group most adversely affected by carp. Trends in aquatic macroinvertebrate biomass were similar to those observed for vegetation biomass and cover. However, the mesh only had a positive effect on invertebrates, such as odonates, typically found on vegetation. Macroinvertebrates associated with the sediment, such as Chironomidae, were found in lower numbers in enclosures containing carp, even if a mesh covering was present. These results show that carp can have important direct and indirect effects on an aquatic ecosystem. As these fish forage, they are disturbing bottom sediments and uprooting aquatic macrophytes. Phosphorus, which is normally bound in these sediments and plants, is released into the water column. A surplus of nutrients and the loss of macrophytes, a competitor, should have provided ideal conditions for increased phytoplankton production, however, carp were not found to increase phytoplankton biomass in this experiment. Phytoplankton biomass was likely limited by the high turbidity of the carp-dominated systems. Aquatic macrophytes were negatively affected by direct uprooting by carp and the high level of turbidity. Chara, a macrophyte sensitive to high levels of turbidity, was particularly affected by the presence of carp. Carp reduced aquatic macroinvertebrate abundance indirectly by reducing macrophyte cover and directly through predation. These effects have important consequences for resource managers trying to maintain high quality sport fish populations: 1) many game species of fish rely on aquatic macrophytes as spawning habitat, refugia See Carp cont… page 12

9

Articles

RIVERSIDE WETLANDS AND ENDANGERED FISH IN

COLORADO RIVER BASIN The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of Reclamation are working to acquire access to riverside wetlands for endangered fish habitat along the Colorado River for endangered fish recovery. Priority properties are those immediately adjacent to the river in areas where flooding is most likely to occur. The Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program spent about $75,000 for this purpose in FY 98 and has set aside about $1.7 million for FY 99. The Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program has established a site on the World Wide Web with more than 60 color photos of the Colorado River basin, endangered Colorado River fish, hatchery facilities, researchers at work and historical photos of the fish from the early 1900’s. The site also explains why the fish are endangered, describes the Upper Colorado River Recovery Program, and tells what’s being done to recover them. The site is located at: www.r6.fws.gov/coloradoriver. Key points of the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program are: ? ? The project is strictly voluntary.

Landowners are under no obligation to participate but would be compensated at fair market value for property rights if they choose to sell.

? ? The project helps achieve progress

towards the recovery of endangered fish, which in turn allows the states of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming to develop more water for human purposes while complying with the Endangered Species Act.

? ? The project involves trout easements for up to 5,750 acres along the

? ? Green River; 3,500 acres along the

Colorado River; and 750 acres along the Gunnison River.

? ? Wetlands are believed essential to

recovery of endangered fish such as the razorback sucker and Colorado squawfish. These areas provide warmer, slower-moving water and an abundance of microscopic food. Young endangered fish grow significantly in these areas, which may then enable them to become large enough to fend for themselves in the main river channel and escape predation by other adult fish.

? ? Wetlands also help control flooding,

filter water pollutants, replenish groundwater supplies and provide habitat for hundreds of species of plants and wildlife.

? ? Riparian, or riverside, areas have

been called “streams of life” and the “lifeblood” of the arid West. Scientists estimate that 60 to 90% of all terrestrial wildlife species require wetlands for their survival. Biologists believe boosting riverside wetlands may help keep other native fish, birds, plants and mammals from becoming endangered.

? ? Historically, upper Colorado River

basin floodplains frequently were inundated during spring runoff. Today in the upper Colorado River basin, stream-side wetlands have been drained or cut off from the river by dikes, and many of the river’s “backwaters” have disappeared. Habitat loss is one of the key reasons for the decline of many fish and wildlife species.

Contribution of Stocked Fingerling Largemouth Bass to the Population and Fishery at Taylorsville Lake, Kentucky

Fin-clipped largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides averaging 4.2-4.5 in were stocked annually in Taylorsville Lake in the fall from 1988-1992 at densities ranging from 9.8-27.8 fish/acre. Survival from age 0 to age 1 was inversely related to the number of bass stocked with 10 fish/acre being the optimal stocking density. In 1993, after 5 years of stocking, the stocked bass accounted for 37.6% (<8.0 in), 18.2% (8.0-11.9 in), 24.1% (12.0-14.9 in), and 14.9% (=15.0 in) of the various size groups and 24.5% of the total electrofishing catch. Contribution of the stocked fish in the electrofishing catch declined below significant levels by the second spring following the cessation of the fall stocking program. Corresponding significant increases were detected in the anglers’ catch and release of 8.0-11.9 in largemouth bass. Although not significant, the stocked bass accounted for 14.4% of the total number of 12.0-14.9 in and 11.5% of the total number of =15 in fish caught and released by anglers from 1990-1995. The stocked bass did not result in significant increases in total numbers of bass harvested, however, they did account for 11.6% of the legal harvest of bass at the lake from 1990-1995. Contribution of stocked bass to the fishery declined rapidly after 1995, 3 years after stocking ceased. The 5-year largemouth bass stocking program at Taylorsville Lake provided benefits to both the population and fishery and resulted in a cost/benefit ratio of 1:3.9 for the catch and release portion of the fishery from 1990-1995.

10

ARTicles

A compilation of reports resulted from an intense field effort during 1998 by the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and United States Geological Survey (USGS) to evaluate the impact of double-crested cormorant predation on smallmouth bass and other fishes of the eastern basin of Lake Ontario. For the purpose of this evaluation, the eastern basin includes New York waters of Lake Ontario from 7 km south of Little Galloo Island to Cape Vincent. This evaluation was precipitated by the concern of resource managers for the long-term health of the eastern basin fishery, and by a strongly held public perception that smallmouth bass fishing was poor and double-crested cormorant predation was excessive.

Along with public concerns, NYSDEC and USGS had collected information that confirmed warm water fish stocks in the eastern basin had declined, and cormorants were consuming large numbers of fish. There was no conclusive evidence, however, to directly link double-crested cormorants to the decline in smallmouth bass. Furthermore, there were other ecological changes (phosphorus, alewife, dreissinid mussels, and water clarity) that occurred during the same period that may have contributed to the decline in smallmouth bass. The 1998 studies focused to: 1) assess trends in the quality of the eastern basin warm water fishery, 2) describe the sizes, ages and numbers of smallmouth bass and yellow perch consumed by cormorants, 3) evaluate the

influence of ecosystem changes on smallmouth bass fisheries, 4) determine if walleye are a major predator on smallmouth bass and 5) establish if cormorant predation represented a significant factor in the decline of the smallmouth bass population and fishery of the eastern basin.

Overview of Reports:

Population Trends Among Smallmouth Bass in the Eastern Basin: Examination of the abundance, age, growth and mortality of smallmouth bass from the eastern basin from 1976 to 1997 documented a precipitous decline in relative abundance beginning in 1991, along with a modest decline in survival for ages 6 to 12. Over the course of the study, growth increased for ages 6 to 10, suggesting that the eastern basin smallmouth bass were not resource limited, despite declines in lake productivity. Summary of 1976-98 Warm Water Assessment: A pattern of overall decline in the warm water fish community from 200-250 fish per net gang in 1976-79 to approximately 20 fish per net gang in 1997-98. In the last four years, smallmouth bass CPUE was lower than any previously recorded year. Lake Ontario – Eastern Basin Creel Survey, 1998: A survey found that 36,000 smallmouth bass were harvested by anglers in 1998, which was substantially lower than the 183,000 and 90,000 smallmouth bass harvested in the

eastern basin during 1978 and 1984, respectively. Angling quality (CPUE), was approximately one-half or less than that measured in previous studies Diet Composition and Fish Consumption of Double-crested Cormorants in Eastern Lake Ontario, 1998: Over 3,000 cormorant pellets were collected between April 22 and September 23 from Little Galloo Island. They estimated that double-crested cormorants consumed 87.5 million fish in eastern Lake Ontario in 1998. Alewife (23.6 million), threespine stickleback (18.9 million), cyprinids (11.5 million) were the primary forage species eaten whereas yellow perch (15.8 million), pumpkinseed (6 million), and rock bass (2.6 million) were the major panfish consumed. About 1.3 million smallmouth bass were eaten by cormorants. Size and Ages of Smallmouth Bass Consumed by Double-crested Cormorants: In 1993-94, estimated average total length of smallmouth bass consumed by double-crested cormorants was 256 mm (10.1 in) with an average age of 4.4 years. Adams et al (1998) also estimated that 14% of smallmouth bass consumed by double-crested cormorants in 1993-94 were legal-size fish (above the 12 in minimum size).In 1998, the average size and age of smallmouth bass were 199 mm (7.9 in) and 3.3 years; few smallmouth bass were legal-size and double-crested cormorants preyed upon ages 2 to 4 yellow perch.

Double-Crested Cormorant Predation on Smallmouth Bass and Other Fishes of the Eastern Basin of Lake Ontario: Overview and Summary

C. P. Schneider, A. Schiavone, Jr., T. H. Eckert, R. D. McCullough, B. F. Lantry, D. W. Einhouse, J. R. Chrisman and C. M. Adams

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and

J. H. Johnson and R. M. Ross United States Geological Survey

11 articles

Trends in Lake Ontario Smallmouth Bass Sport Fisheries: A significant decline in the harvest rate ratio of smallmouth bass at the Henderson site (Eastern Basin) was found beginning in the early 1990s without any significant lakewide trend in smallmouth bass harvest rate at other sites - despiterather profound changes in nutrients, alewife abundance and Dreissenid densities. Predation on Smallmouth Bass by Walleye in the Eastern Basin of Lake Ontario, 1998: Walleye stomachs examined from the eastern basin during spring, summer and fall and walleye diet analysis by Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (eastern Lake Ontario) from 1958 to 1998 found no smallmouth bass in any of the walleye stomachs. Population Trends Among Yellow Perch in the Eastern Basin of Lake Ontario, 1976-98: A significant decline in yellow perch abundance occurred since the mid 1980's with no apparent increase in mortality of perch age-4 and older, and no major changes in growth rates. Failure of improved YOY production to increase the adult population is believed related to increased mortality of juvenile perch. Bottom trawl data showed increased mortality of age 1-3 yellow perch from the strong 1991 year class compared to the strong 1977 and 1978 year classes. Cormorant Predation on Recently Stocked Salmonids at Stony Point, Lake Ontario: An estimated 189 brown trout were consumed by double-crested cormorants, or 0.5% of the stocking lost to double-crested cormorant predation. The low percentage of loss for brown trout and zero loss for lake trout suggests the effectiveness of barge stocking has improved, compared to 1993 and 1994 when 13.6% and 8.8%, respectively, of the stocked lake trout were consumed by

double-crested cormorants. The Relationship Between the Abundance of Smallmouth Bass and Double-Crested Cormorants in the Eastern Basin of Lake Ontario: The ratio of CPUE at age-3 to CPUE at age-6 smallmouth bass was used as an index of relative mortality, to look for trends in mortality in younger fish. A significant difference in relative mortality of smallmouth bass between ages 3 and 6 for two time stanzas, 1975 to 1988 and 1989 to 1996 was found. Mortality increased substantially after 1989, near the end of a four-year period of time when double-crested cormorants on Little Galloo Island increased from 1,419 to 4,072 nesting pairs. Further, from 1976 to 1994, there was a highly significant relationship between age-3 to 6 relative mortality of smallmouth bass and numbers of nesting pairs on Little Galloo Island. Using diet composition of smallmouth bass consumed by cormorants, the 1992-96 smallmouth bass consumption mean (600,000), and estimates of smallmouth bass standing stock for the U.S. waters o the eastern basin, cormorants had the potential to remove a major proportion of each year class. Summary: Angling quality for smallmouth bass had deteriorated in the eastern basin, while it remained unchanged or improved in other areas of Lake Ontario that were outside the feeding range of eastern basin double-crested cormorants. This suggested that ecosystem changes, e.g., low phosphorus, declining zooplankton and expanding Dreissenid mussels, were not the principal factors responsible for the decline in the smallmouth bass stocks in the eastern basin, because these same ecosystem changes occurred throughout Lake Ontario.

Double-crested cormorants were preying on larger sizes and older ages of

smallmouth bass than initially thought. Approximately 1 million, age-3 to 5 smallmouth bass were consumed by double-crested cormorants annually, just a year or two prior to the age when they entered the fishery. Evaluation of relative mortality of young smallmouth bass showed a significant increase in mortality beginning about 1989, when double-crested cormorant numbers grew to 4,000 nesting pairs.

PRESIDENT'S cont… The Search Committee and Governing Board have confidence in Gus Rassam. It is now up to the members to help Gus learn the issues that face AFS and together, move the Society forward.

12

articles

Hooking Mortality of Spring Chinook Salmon in a Catch and

Release Fishery

Robert Lindsay, Kirk Schroeder, Ken Kenaston, and Mary Buckman.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Corvallis, OR. 541-757-4263 X 251,

schroedk@ucs.orst.edu Freshwater sport fisheries account for over half of the total harvest mortality on Willamette spring chinook salmon. A catch and release sport fishery would decrease harvest on wild fish while maintaining recreational fisheries on hatchery fish. We tagged adult spring chinook at Willamette Falls on the Willamette River to evaluate hooking mortality in a catch and release fishery. Our design consisted of groups caught on typical sport fishing gear (n=262 on lures and n=150 on bait), and control groups caught in a trap located in the fishway at Willamette Falls (n=226). Fish were tagged with plastic anchor tags and released into the river or into the fish ladder. Tagged adult fish were recovered at hatcheries and in fishway traps above Willamette Falls. Hooking mortality averaged 23% for two groups of chinook salmon caught on lures and released. In contrast, mortality was about 10% for chinook salmon caught on bait and released. A survey of Willamette River spring chinook anglers in 1998 indicated that 17% used lures and the rest usedbait. In addition, the mean harvest rate of spring chinook entering the Willamette River below Willamette Falls in normal run years was 28%. Assuming that the mortality we observed in our experiment is representative of mortality in the general fishery below the falls, mortality of wild spring chinook in a catch and release fishery in the Willamette River would be about 3% of the run into the river.

Relationship Between Fall Length of Age-0 Largemouth

Bass and Recruitment Pre-winter length of age-0 largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides is an important factor in determining year class strength at age 1. Correlations exist between age-1 year class strength and numbers of older largemouth bass. Such results indicate that fisheries managers should focus efforts on increasing the numbers of larger age-0 largemouth bass present in a body of water prior to the onset of winter. Increased number of larger age-0 bass will produce stronger year classes at age 1 and subsequent years. Development of relationships between year class strength indices and abundance estimates of older fish would aid proactive fishery management decisions.

Carp cont… for young, and foraging areas, 2) the loss of macroinvertebrates reduces an important food source, 3) and high turbidity can interfere with fish that are sight predators. Our mesh substrate covering did not prevent carp from stirring up bottom sediments and releasing nutrients into the water column. Invertebrates commonly found within sediments were still reduced in abundance when carp were present. However, the effects of carp on macrophytes was mitigated by the mesh; we found macrophyte biomass and cover was intermediate between the carp/no mesh and fishless treatments, showing that the mesh did protect some macrophytes from uprooting by carp. Invertebrates usually associated with vegetation structure also benefited from the mesh covering. Restoration of macrophytes to shallow aquatic systems could benefit fish and invertebrate populations by enhancing habitat and reducing turbidity. Mesh substrate covering may prove to be a useful tool in rehabilitating systems effected by carp. Joseph J. Parkos III University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, IL 61820 parkos@uiuc.edu Victor J. Santucci, Jr. Max McGraw Wildlife Foundation Dundee, IL 60118 Vsantuc@ix.netcom.com David H. Wahl Center for Aquatic Ecology Illinois Natural History Survey Sullivan, IL 61951

SAVE THE DATE August 29 - September 2,1999

129th AFS Annual Meeting & Trade Show

Adams Mark Hotel

Charlotte, North Carolina

“Integrating Fisheries Principles from Mountain to Marine Habitats”

For information contact: AFS 301/897-8616

Bob Curry Local Arrangements Chair

curryrl@mail.wildlife.state.nc.us

Andy Dolloff Program Chair adoll@vt.edu

Enter the daily drawing! Visit the Charlotte Convention & Visitor’s Bureau Display at this year’s meeting.

13

Announcements

14

Announcements

December 5th-8th, 1999 Chicago, Illinois

Sheraton Chicago Hotel and Towers

Currently Planned Symposia Include: ? Dam Removal and Fish Passage: Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems ? Integrating Creel Surveys with Management and Research ? Remote Sensing in Natural Resource Management ? Maintaining Fish and Wildlife Biodiversity in Urban Landscapes ? Wetland Assessment, Monitoring and Conservation ? The Effects of Habitat Fragmentation on Biological Communities ? Molecular Research and the Conservation of Wildlife and Fisheries ? Mined Land Habitat Acquisition: Opportunities and Challenges ? Citizen Monitoring Program Abstracts for Posters and Presentations are due July 15, 1999.

For more up-to-date information regarding the conference,

visit http://dnr.state.il.us/midwest99

FMS MEETING TO BE HELD AT WESTERN DIVISION ANNUAL

MEETING Tim Hess, president-elect of the Fisheries Management Section, will chair an FMS meeting at the AFS Western Division Annual Meeting in July. Tim will update attendees on where the FMS is heading and what some of the ongoing projects are. There will be time to have an open discussion and get input from members concerning issues related to the FMS. The Western Division Meeting has been set for July 11-14, 1999 and will be held at the University of Idaho in Moscow, ID. Look for the FMS meeting schedule to be announced during the Annual Meeting or contact Tim Hess for further information at (802)-241-3476, or tim@fwd.anr.state.vt.us.

WIU Alumni Appreciation Luncheon

Western Illinois University will be hosting an Alumni Appreciation Luncheon at the Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference on Monday, December 6th , 1999 following the Plenary lectures. The luncheon is free to all WIU Alumni. If you are planning to attend, please contact Dr. Larry Jahn, Dept. of Biological Sciences, 1 University Circle, Western Illinois University, Macomb, IL 61455, PHONE: (309) 298-1546, E-mail: la-jahn@wiu.edu Editor's Note: The number of articles and general information submitted for this newsletter was outstanding. However, we are constricted to certain page requirements by the printer. If your article does not appear in this newsletter, it will receive top priority for the next newsletter.

15

FMS Information

Fisheries Management Section

Fisheries Management Section Newsletter is published three times yearly. It is dedicated to maintaining the professional standards of the American Fisheries Management Section, and Fisheries management throughout North America. Executive Committee: ??Jeff Boxrucker, President ??Steve Filipek, Immediate Past President ??Rob Neumann, Secretary / Treasurer ??Tim Hess, President Elect ??Paul Michaletz, North Central Division Rep. ??Frank Fiss, Southern Division Rep. ??Doug Stang, Northeast Division Rep. ??Linda Prendergast, Western Division Rep. Editorial Staff: ??Southern Illinois University Unit of the Illinois Chapter of

the American Fisheries Society, Editors ??Brian L. Sloss, Managing Editor ??Steven Kerr, Ontario Editor ??Bill Hyatt, Northeast Regional Editor ??Wendell Willey, Western Regional Editor ??Michael Vanderford, North Central Regional Editor ??Ron Moore, Southern Regional Editor

Editors Addresses and Phone Numbers: Brian L. Sloss Cooperative Fisheries Research Laboratory Southern Illinois University Carbondale, IL, 62901-6511 PHONE/FAX: (618) 536-7761 E-MAIL: blsloss@siu.edu Steven Kerr Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Science and Technology Transfer Unit Postal Bag 19 Kemptville, ON KOG 1J0, Canada PHONE: (613) 258-8212 FAX: (613) 258-3920 Bill Hyatt 42 Kenneth Dr. Gastonbury, CT 06033 PHONE: (860) 424-3487 Wendell Willey CA Cooperative Fishery Research Unit Humboldt State University Arcata, CA. 95518 PHONE: (707) 826-3223 E-MAIL: wsw1@humbolt.edu Michael Vanderford Division of Federal Aid U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1 Federal Drive Ft. Snelling, MN 55111- 4056 E-MAIL: michael_vanderford@mail.fws.gov Ron Moore AR Game and Fish Comm 2905 West Oak Rogers, AR 72756 PHONE: (877)-631-6005 E-MAIL: rmoore@agfc.state.ar.us Fisheries Management Section dues are $5 per year. Notification of address change should be submitted to the American Fisheries Society office in Bethesda, Maryland.

NON PROFIT ORG. U.S. POSTAGE

PAID CARBONDALE, IL

PERMIT 89

AFS-FMS Newsletter Cooperative Fisheries Research Laboratory Southern Illinois University Carbondale, IL 62901-6511

Fisheries Management Section

American Fisheries Society