Fisheries€¦ · Fisheries • Vol 37 No 7• July 2012 • 291 This is the third and final...

Fisheries

Sustaining Marine Biodiversity

Riverscape Analysis for Salmon Conservation

Challenges to Conservation Budgets

Enhancing Education with Field Site Visits

American Fisheries Society • www.fisheries.orgVOL 37 NO 7 JULY 2012

03632415(2012)37(7)

Corporate Office 360.468.3375 [email protected]

Biological Services 360.596.9400 [email protected]

Northwest Marine Technology, Inc. www.nmt.us Shaw Island, Washington, USA

Northwest Marine Technology (NMT) is pleased to announce that we will continue to offer our Innovative 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 any agency or institution. A wide range of projects will be considered. We are particularly interested in 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. 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).

NMT Research Grants

Visible Implant Elastomer TagsTM

Juvenile & Adult Fish Counters

Visible Implant Alpha TagsTM

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

Coded Wire TagsTM

Contents

Fisheries VOL 37 NO 7 JULY 2012

President’s Hook291 Integrating Ecological and Social Networks in FisheriesIntroducing Dr. William W. Taylor, one of the plenary speak-ers at this year’s annual meeting.

Bill Fisher—AFS President

Guest Director’s Line325 Leadership in the Hurricane of ChangeToday’s conservation professionals are faced with a sense of urgency like none before, caused principally by two major forces: significant reductions in budget and expanding conservation challenges at all levels of governance.

Jim Martin, William W. Taylor, and Kelsey M. Schlee

COLUMNS

294 Mississippi’s Pascagoula River designated as a model river in America’s Great Outdoor Rivers Program; AFS joins FishNet; Stan Moberly receives major award; AFS co-signs letter to congressmen; Economic benefits to fisheries conservation.

HEADLINERS

Biodiversity Research 296 Canadian Healthy Oceans Network (CHONe): An Academic –Government Partnership to Develop Scientific Guidelines for Conservation and Sustainable Usage of Marine BiodiversityThe oceans provide food and much, much more, so science and policy must work together to ensure their future health.

Paul V.R. Snelgrove, Philippe Archambault, S. Kim Juniper, Peter Lawton, Anna Metaxas, Pierre Pepin, Jake C. Rice, and Verena Tunnicliffe

Fisheries Conservation and Management305 A Riverscape Analysis Tool Developed to Assist Wild Salmon Conservation Across the North Pacific RimA geospatial analysis tool for exploring river and salmon conser-vation alternatives.

Diane C. Whited, John S. Kimball, John A. Lucotch, Niels K. Maumenee, Huan Wu, Samantha D. Chilcote, and Jack A. Stanford

Fisheries Education315 Interactive Field Site Visits Can Help Students Translate Scientific Studies into Contextual UnderstandingHow incorporating interactive learning methods helped to better engage undergraduate students in exploring riparian ecology during a field site visit.

J.M. Burt, M.R. Donaldson, K.A. Hruska, S.G. Hinch, and J.S. Richardson

FEATURES

329 Leslie Edward Whitesel

IN MEMORIAM

331 Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, Volume 141, Number 3, May 2012

JOURNAL HIGHLIGHTS

335 July 2012 Jobs

ANNOUNCEMENTS

Pascagoula RiverPhoto credit: Ralph Lyon

320 AFS 2011 Student Writing Contest—Honorable Mention WinnerFilth, Flows, and Family: Pressures Mount on a Rare Stream Catfish

Steve Midway

STUDENT ANGLE

AFS 2012 ANNUAL MEETING

330 AFS 2012 Tours and Eats

NEW AFS MEMBERS 328

333 Fisheries Events

CALENDAR

294

UNIT NEWS

322 Idaho Chapter Holds Annual Meeting in Coeur d’Alene

Joe DuPont

Cover: Salmon Spawning by S. Gilbert Fox

Fisheries • Vol 37 No 7• July 2012• www.fisheries.org 290

MEMBERSHIP TYPE/DUES (Includes print Fisheries and online Membership Directory)

Developing countries I (Includes online Fisheries only): N/A NORTH AMERICA; _____$10 OTHERDeveloping countries II: N/A NORTH AMERICA; _____$35 OTHERRegular: _____$80 NORTH AMERICA; _____$95 OTHERStudent (includes online journals): _____$20 NORTH AMERICA; _____$30 OTHERYoung professional (year graduated): _____$40 NORTH AMERICA; _____$50 OTHERRetired (regular members upon retirement at age 65 or older): _____$40 NORTH AMERICA; _____$50 OTHERLife (Fisheries and 1 journal): _____$1, 737 NORTH AMERICA; _____$1737 OTHERLife (Fisheries only, 2 installments, payable over 2 years): _____$1,200 NORTH AMERICA; _____$1,200 OTHER: $1,200Life (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

Recruited by an AFS member? yes noName

EMPLOYERIndustryAcademiaFederal gov’tState/provincial gov’tOther

FisheriesAmerican Fisheries Society • www.fisheries.org

EDITORIAL / SUBSCRIPTION / CIRCULATION OFFICES5410 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 management of aquatic resources for optimum use and enjoyment by the public. It also encourages comprehensive education of fisheries scientists and continuing on-the-job training.

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 APPLICATIONAMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY • 5410 GROSVENOR LANE • SUITE 110 • BETHESDA, MD 20814-2199

(301) 897-8616 x203 OR x224 • FAX (301) 897-8096 • WWW.FISHERIES .ORG

PAID:

NAME

Address

City

State/Province ZIP/Postal Code

CountryPlease provide (for AFS use only)Phone

Fax

E-mail

PAYMENTPlease make checks payable to American Fisheries Society in U.S. currency drawn on a U.S. bank, or pay by VISA, MasterCard, or American Express.

_____Check

_____American Express

Account #______________________________________

Exp. Date _____________

Signature ______________________________________

_____VISA

_____MasterCard

All memberships are for a calendar year. New member applications received Janu-ary 1 through August 31 are processed for full membership that calendar year (back issues are sent). Applications received September 1 or later are processed for full membership beginning January 1 of the following year.

AFS OFFICERSPRESIDENTWilliam L. Fisher

PRESIDENT ELECTJohn Boreman

FIRST VICE PRESIDENTRobert Hughes

SECOND VICE PRESIDENTDonna Parrish

PAST PRESIDENTWayne A. Hubert

EXECUTIVE DIRECTORGhassan “Gus” N. Rassam

FISHERIES STAFFSENIOR EDITORGhassan “Gus” N. Rassam

DIRECTOR OF PUBLICATIONSAaron Lerner

MANAGING EDITORSarah Fox

EDITORSSCIENCE EDITORSMarilyn “Guppy” Blair Jim BowkerHoward I. BrowmanMason BryantSteven R. ChippsSteven J. CookeKen CurrensAndy DanylchukMichael R. DonaldsonAndrew H. FayramStephen FriedLarry M. GigliottiMadeleine Hall-ArborAlf HaukenesJeffrey E. HillDeirdre M. Kimball

DUES AND FEES FOR 2012 ARE:$80 in North America ($95 elsewhere) for regular members, $20 in North America ($30 elsewhere) for student members, and $40 ($50 elsewhere) for retired members.

Fees include $19 for Fisheries subscription.

Nonmember and library subscription rates are $157 in North America ($199 elsewhere).

Price per copy: $3.50 member; $6 nonmem-ber.

Denny LassuyDaniel McGarveyAllen RutherfordRoar SandoddenJeff SchaefferJesse TrushenskiUsha Varanasi Jack E. WilliamsJeffrey Williams

BOOK REVIEW EDITORFrancis Juanes

ABSTRACT TRANSLATIONPablo del Monte Luna

Fisheries • Vol 37 No 7• July 2012 • www.fisheries.org 291

This is the third and final article about the theme of the 2012 American Fisheries Society Annual Meeting (afs2012.org) in St. Paul–Minneapolis, Minnesota, “Fisheries Networks: Building Ecological, Social and Professional Relationships” and the ple-nary speakers who will address it. In this article, I highlight Dr. William W. Taylor – a Past President of the American Fisheries Society (1997–1998) and University Distinguished Professor in Global Fisheries Systems in the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Center for Systems Integration and Sustainabil-ity at Michigan State University. For his plenary talk, Bill will address “Fisheries Sustainability: The Science and Art of Cou-pling Human and Natural Systems.” Bill is an active leader in fisheries at local, regional, and international levels and brings valuable perspective to this topic.

Fisheries science has been progressively moving from dis-ciplinary and multidisciplinary science conducted by individual or groups of ecologists and sociologists toward interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research conducted by teams of scientists from a broad range of fields that also include economists, ge-ographers, anthropologists, and others. Integrated studies of coupled ecological (natural) and sociological (human) systems have revealed complex patterns and processes that were not evident when studied separately by ecologists and sociologists (Liu et al. 2007). Though this integrated approach has been used in marine fisheries for some time, it has more recently become an objective of freshwater recreational fisheries and aquaculture management (Cowx and Anrooy 2010). Disciplinary strength is needed and will remain important to fisheries management; the challenge for fisheries scientists will be learning the language and methods of other disciplines as we work in teams.

Collaboration is needed across disciplines, involving pol-icy makers and policy influencers (e.g., legislators, business leaders, nongovernmental organizations) to help identify what is needed from the scientific community and the pathways of solutions rather than just the processes leading to the problems (Palmer 2012). This approach, called “actionable science,” focuses on what motivates the science priority questions and themes as well as who is engaged in the process of identify-ing those priorities. Initiating the research process with policy needs rather than ending it with them would be a new path for many researchers and scholars. Clearly, this new way of think-ing will challenge many fisheries scientists but is needed to better integrate fisheries management across natural and human systems.

Bill Taylor is an internationally recognized expert in Great Lakes fisheries ecology, population dynamics, governance, and management. Throughout his career, Taylor has been active in the American Fisheries Society, serving as president of the soci-

ety, the Michigan Chapter, and the North Central Division. Currently, he holds a U.S. Presidential appointment as a U.S. Commissioner (alternate) for the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. In addition, he has held a gubernatorial appointment to Michigan’s Aquatic Nuisance Species Coordinating Council and a U.S. Secretary of Interior appoint-ment to the Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council, which he chaired for 8 years. He is also the associate director of the Michigan Sea Grant College Program. Bill has received numerous awards and published more than 120 articles in the scientific literature and has coedited five books, including the first edition of Great Lakes Fishery Policy and Management. He has a keen interest in environmental policy and management from a local to global perspective.

Bill’s broad experience and perspectives will help tie to-gether ecological and social networks that build sustainable fisheries. He will also address the importance of networking to fisheries professionals. I invite all of you to attend this year’s plenary session to hear our outstanding speakers talk about fish-eries networks and to witness the presentation of the society’s most prestigious awards.

REFERENCESCowx, I. G., and R. V. Anrooy. 2010. Social, economic and ecological

objectives of commercial and recreational fisheries and aquacul-ture. Fisheries Management and Ecology 17:89–92.

Liu, J., T. Dietz, S. R. Carpenter, M. Alberti, C. Folke, E. Moran, A. N. Pell, P. Deadman, T. Kratz, J. Lubchenco, E. Ostrom, Z. Ouyang, W. Provencher, C. L. Redman, S. H. Schneider, W. W. Taylor. 2007. Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Sci-ence 317:1513–1516.

Palmer, M. A. 2012. Socioenvironmental sustainability and actionable science. Bioscience 62(1):5–6.

Taylor, W. W., and C. P. Ferreri, editors. 2002. Great Lakes fisheries policy and management: a binational perspective. Michigan State University Press, East Lansing.

COLUMNPresident’s Hook

AFS President Fisher may be contacted at: [email protected]

Integrating Ecological and Social Networks in FisheriesBill Fisher, President


Smith-Root H (Heavy Duty) and EH (Extra Heavy Duty) model electrofishing boats are powered by fuel-efficient, safe, marine-compliant generators built by

Innovative features such as an advanced engine control module, digital control system (with diagnostic menu display) and a hydrocarbon-limiting catalytic exhaust system assure that your boat will have a minimal environmental impact, greater efficiency - with additional operational cost savings.

Stay green AND save money!

All of our boats hulls, parts and on-board electrofishing components are designed using precise 3-D parametric modeling software and fabricated in-house on a computerized CNC mill, reducing waste, the need for inventory, while also increasing accuracy and efficiency.

Designed for Electrofishing

Built to last a lifetime

Our boats are designed and built from the ground up with electrofishing in mind.

[email protected] • (360) 573-0202 • 14014 NE Salmon Creek Ave., Vancouver, WA 98686 •www.smith-root.comSMITH-ROOT

®

SMITH-ROOT

®

®

All Smith-Root electrofishing boats come equipped with:

center control console • forward work-deck with railings •

collection tank • work lighting (with LED option package) • swivel seat

storage compartments • non-skid decking • and more....

www.smith-root.com/boats


Don JacksonDepartment of Wildlife, Fisheries & Aquaculture, Mississippi State University, MS. E-mail: [email protected]

The Pascagoula River is the very last physically unmodified, unimpeded large river system in the contiguous United States. On Wednesday, May 23, 2012, Interior Department Secretary Ken Salazar announced that the Pascagoula River would be one of 11 rivers in the Midwest and South to “serve as models” for a national program to restore rivers.

From its source in east-central Mississippi to its estuary at the interface with the Gulf of Mexico, the Pascagoula River is a magnet for people seeking connections with a fully integrated, wild, floodplain river ecosystem. Principle fisheries in the system’s upper reaches revolve around centrarchids (primarily largemouth and spotted bass, crappies, and bluegill) and ictalurids (primarily channel catfish and flathead catfish), but moving downstream the catches can include flounders and various scienids (e.g., red drum and sea trout). In the estuary there is also a substantial blue crab fishery. Anadromous fishes of special concern throughout their ranges, such as Gulf of Mexico striped bass and gulf strain Atlantic sturgeon, are commonly encountered in the river, particularly as they make spawning runs. The Mississippi Sandhill Crane and endangered sawback turtles, along with an incredible diversity of more common birds and reptiles, help provide a foundation that attracts naturalists from around the world.

State and federal wildlife areas account for vast tracts of wild lands along the river as well as throughout its floodplains and estu-ary. In fact, one of the areas, the Pascagoula River Wildlife Management Area, has been called “The Crown Jewel” of state wildlife management areas nationally. The river and its intact and fully functional corridor of forests and wetlands are a critical transit and stopover area for neo-tropical migrant birds pre- and post-flight across the Gulf of Mexico.

There are numerous fish camps along the river’s course, and particularly in its lower reaches, where private landowners have established cabins or mooring locations for house boats. In fact, some of the river’s greatest assets are its ease of access and the showcasing of environmentally sensitive human stewardship of what local people consider a national treasure. There are numerous boat ramps along its course and throughout its estuary. Although it is a fairly large river, it is perfectly suited for canoes and kayaks. High flows (primarily during winter and following tropical storms and hurricanes) can be challenging and sometimes dangerous. Low flows (late spring and late autumn) provide better opportunity to move at a pace that allows persons to meld with an incredibly beautiful riverine ecosystem, with high, sweeping sandbars, dense subtropical riparian forest, and numerous off-channel backwaters, sloughs and oxbow lakes. According to the National Park Service, there will be 81 miles of water trails providing opportunity for people to enjoy the river through a system of camping and picnic sites that are connected to launch points across the entire length of the river.

Following the Department of the Interior announcement, Joe Huffman, Pascagoula city manager, stated, “The designation of the Pascagoula River as a model of the America’s Great Outdoor Rivers program should provide the appropriate national attention this river should enjoy. The ecological significance and the economic importance of the river cannot be over emphasized.”

HEADLINERS

Mississippi’s Pascagoula River Designated as a Model River in America’s Great Outdoor Rivers Program

Photo credit: Sandy Bynum Photo credit: Ralph Lyon

AFS Policy Statement #23: The Effects of Livestock Grazing on Riparian and Stream Ecosystems It is well known that livestock often spend a disproportionate amount of time in riparian areas, especially on rangeland in the arid and semi-arid West. Unfortunately, overuse has resulted in considerable damage to riparian zones with degradation of aquatic and wildlife habitats.


AFS recently joined several FishNet member organizations in co-signing a letter to the U.S. Senate Agriculture Committee urging them to include a strong sodsaver provision in the next Farm Bill. The letter stated that this would “promote continued excellent stewardship of America’s farmlands and foster production of crops, clean water, and abundant populations of fish and wildlife.”

AFS joined the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and over 1100 other organizations in co-signing a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker John Boehner, urging Congress not to attempt to balance the federal budget disproportionately on the backs of conservation, outdoor recreation, and preservation. Doing so, according to the letter, would “impose on the future gen-erations whose well-being depends on the conservation and preservation of our common natural and historic resources.”

AFS’s own Stan Moberly – AFS member and past President (87-88) – who works with the Northwest Marine Technology in Shaw Island, WA, was selected by the NOAA/NMFS Of-fice of Habitat Conservation to receive the 2011 Nancy Foster Habitat Conservation Award. The ceremony took place April 16th on the NOAA campus in Silver Spring, MD. Stan was one of three 2011 recipients, each honored for a career of contribu-tions to marine or coastal habitat conservation. The award was presented in partnership with the AFS Estuaries Section. Stan was selected for decades of solid and influential contributions to fish habitat conservation, both nationally and internationally. Most recently, Stan has represented the American Fisheries So-ciety on the Board of the National Fish Habitat Partnerships, toiling to create regional fish habitat partnerships that pursue science-driven measurable goals for fish habitat conservation. Stan continues to represent AFS in many fish habitat arenas.

AFS Policy Statement #23: The Effects of Livestock Grazing on Riparian and Stream Ecosystems It is well known that livestock often spend a disproportionate amount of time in riparian areas, especially on rangeland in the arid and semi-arid West. Unfortunately, overuse has resulted in considerable damage to riparian zones with degradation of aquatic and wildlife habitats. fisheries.org/policystatements

AFS News Roundup

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service released a fall 2011 report entitled Net Worth, The Economic Value of Fisheries Conservation. The report stated that recreational angling resulting from national hatchery stocking programs has generated the following benefits:

• 13.5 million angler-days

• $554 million in retail sales

• $903 million in industrial output

• 8,000 jobs

• $256 million in wages/salaries

• $37 million in federal tax revenues

• $35 million in local tax revenues

Photo: Stan Moberly Photo credit: Denise Spencer, AFS

Fisheries Conservation Has Economic Benefits

Photo credit: Sarah Fox

AFS Policy Statement #23: The Effects of Livestock Grazing on Riparian and Stream Ecosystems It is well known that livestock often spend a disproportionate amount of time in riparian areas, especially on rangeland in the arid and semi-arid West. Unfortunately, overuse has resulted in considerable damage to riparian zones with degradation of aquatic and wildlife habitats.

AFS Policy Statement #27: Conservation of Imperiled Species and Reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act of 1973Adequate funding of the ESA is the top priority. Substantial increases in appropriations for federal agencies, cooperative state programs, and local habitat conservation plans are critical for achieving any real success in ecosystem protection and species recovery. fisheries.org/policystatements


FEATUREBiodiversity Research

Canadian Healthy Oceans Network (CHONe): An Academic–Government Partnership to Develop Scientific Guidelines for Conservation and Sustainable Usage of Marine Biodiversity

Red Canadiense de Ecosistemas Saludables (RCES): una sociedad entre academia y gobierno para desar-rollar directrices científicas en cuanto a conservación y uso sostenible de la biodiversidad marinaRESUMEN: El programa de la Red Canadiense de Eco-sistemas Saludables (RCES) fue concebido para unificar a líderes académicos e investigadores de gobierno con manejadores de recursos de las agencias federales del Canadá, con el fin de lograr un mejor entendimiento de la información científica concerniente a la biodiversidad marina en el Pacífico, Atlántico y Ártico canadienses. En específico, la red está generando diversos productos para informar los compromisos políticos en temas de conser-vación y uso sostenible de la biodiversidad marina. La desconexión entre la investigación científica dirigida y su aplicación en políticas públicas, resulta en una falta de información científica relevante para tomar decisiones cuya resolución no puede esperar a la acumulación de conocimientos. Para reducir esta brecha, la investigación llevada a cabo en la RCES se estructura en tres tópicos integrados y entrelazados: biodiversidad marina, funcio-namiento de ecosistemas y conectividad entre poblaciones. Los productos derivados de la RCES van desde mapas de líneas base, bases de datos y códigos de barras como her-ramienta para comprender procesos y monitorear cambios en el futuro; herramientas predictivas para maximizar el conocimiento de los patrones espaciales y temporales de la diversidad, herramientas analíticas y de muestreo para caracterizar y evaluar la relación entre hábitat y biodiver-sidad; marcos conceptuales para la toma de decisiones en el contexto del manejo integral y sustentable del océano, nuevos hallazgos sobre biodiversidad y funcionamiento de ecosistemas; hasta la emisión de sugerencias específicas, suplemento de datos, modelos y sistemas de información para apoyar los esfuerzos de ordenación marina.

ABSTRACT: The Canadian Healthy Oceans Network (CHONe) research program formed to unite leading academic and government researchers with managers from Canada’s national resource agencies to address an urgent need for better scientific information on marine biodiversity in Can-ada’s Atlantic, Pacific, and Arctic waters. Specifically, the network is producing diverse scientific products to inform poli-cy commitments in conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity resources. A common disconnect between science-driven research and policy application results in a dearth of

Paul V. R. SnelgroveOcean Sciences Centre and Biology Department, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada. E-mail: [email protected]

Philippe ArchambaultInstitut des sciences de la mer, Université du Québec à Rimouski, Quebec, Canada

S. Kim JuniperSchool of Earth & Ocean Sciences and Department of Biology, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia

Peter LawtonFisheries and Oceans Canada, St. Andrews Biological Station, St. Andrews, New Brunswick, Canada

Anna MetaxasDepartment of Oceanography, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

Pierre PepinFisheries and Oceans Canada, Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Centre, St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada

Jake C. RiceFisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Verena Tunnicliffe Department of Biology and School of Earth & Ocean Sciences, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

All authors are part of the Canadian Healthy Oceans Network, housed at Memorial University in St. John’s, Newfoundland. This work was spon-sored by the Canadian Aquatic Resources Section of the American Fisher-ies Society.

science information relevant to specific decisions that cannot wait for knowledge to accumulate. To narrow this gap, CHONe research structures around three interlinking and integrated themes of marine biodiversity, ecosystem function, and popula-tion connectivity. CHONe products span from baseline maps,


INTRODUCTION

The diversity of life in the oceans, from genes to species to ecosystems, represents an irreplaceable natural heritage crucial to human well-being and sustainable development (Snelgrove et al. 2008). However, the oceans may face a bio-diversity crisis rivaling those associated with climate change in complexity (Worm and Lotze 2009). Widespread pressures include (cf. Halpern et al. 2008) collapsed fisheries (Hutchings 2000), regional extirpations (Casey and Myers 1998), alien in-vasive species (Carlton 1996; Rossong et al. 2006; Saunders et al. 2010), habitat destruction (Dayton et al. 1995; Prena et al. 1999), food web alteration (Frank et al. 2005; Quijon and Snel-grove 2005), eutrophication and chemical loading (Coakley and Poulton 1993), and climate change (Smetacek and Nicol 2005; Wassmann et al. 2011).

In Canada and other maritime nations, these threats require science-based frameworks to consolidate current gains and achieve further progress on major marine conservation agree-ments internationally (e.g., Convention on Biological Diversity; United Nations General Assembly; Food and Agriculture Or-ganization) and nationally (Oceans Act 1996; Species at Risk Act,2002). Responses to these threats include fisheries manage-ment adopting ecosystem approaches (Folke et al. 2004; Daan et al. 2005; Rice 2005; Beaumont et al. 2007) that encompass elements of biodiversity and ecosystem services and function-ing (Raffaelli and Frid 2010). Marine protected areas (MPAs) now add to the toolbox of comprehensive management strate-gies (Claudet 2011; Roberts et al. 2011).

The scientific landscape is also changing. Theoretical con-cepts of ecosystem integration now help design strategies to inform marine resource management agencies (e.g., Ellis et al. 2011) using an ecosystem approach for preserving resources, ecosystem function, and biodiversity. Academic funding in-creasingly prioritizes research with societal relevance and benefits, and marine scientists now emphasize ecosystem ser-vices in discussions of conservation priorities and research goals. These shifts in approach provide a significant opportunity for government–academic collaborations to inform ecosystem approaches to management and create an incentive to train students in a broad range of issues so they can move between academic and government laboratories.

CHONe OBJECTIVES

CHONe, a five-year national research network funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), is deliberately broad in both scientific and geographic scope so that research output can flow from improved understanding of basic ocean processes to the im-plementation of well-defined policy and management for conservation and sustainable-use objectives (Figure 1). Effec-tive environmental policy decisions need scientific justification and verification, particularly when policies increase costs or re-duce privileges to society. For such policies, scientific evidence of tangible benefits helps sustain societal willingness to bear the incremental financial or opportunity costs. CHONe will deliver proof of concept for products, providing empirical verification of the consequences of conservation approaches and manage-ment decisions, predictive models, and clarity on underlying assumptions.

CHONe RESEARCH THEMES

Theme 1, marine biodiversity, investigates biodiversity patterns in all of Canada’s three oceans across multiple spatial scales. It develops predictive tools and seeks coherent, robust patterns in biodiversity and habitat type from local to region-al scales. This theme also explores lessons from evolutionary history and population genetics to understand potential con-sequences of Arctic warming. Pragmatically, this theme also provides the taxonomic and data management framework for all three themes.

Theme 2, ecosystem function, explores the role of biodi-versity in functions such as energy transfer, nutrient cycling, and trophic cascades. Most studies include small-scale experi-ments to test how disturbances to biodiversity (e.g., fishing disturbance, climate changes, shellfish aquaculture) could influ-ence ecosystem functioning over ecological and, in some cases, evolutionary timescales. We are also developing strategies to assess ecosystem health and predictive tools to inform conser-vation of biodiversity and ocean function. This objective draws on data from all themes.

databases, and barcodes as tools to understand processes and monitor future change; spatial and temporal predictive tools to maximize knowledge on biodiversity patterns; analytical and sampling tools to characterize and assess biodiversity and hab-itat relationships, decision-making frameworks for sustainable, integrated ocean management; new findings on biodiversity and ecosystem functioning relationships; to specific advice, data input, models, and frameworks for current ocean planning efforts.

Figure 1. Schematic representation of players in ocean policy for sustainable oceans, emphasizing the need for exchange between stake-holders of ideas on objectives and scientific needs.


Theme 3, population connectivity, focuses on linkages of biodiversity among regional communities and populations us-ing “model” areas to examine organism interchange (e.g., Strait of Georgia rockfish, Nova Scotia lobster, and juvenile cod in coastal Newfoundland). We will augment regional studies with biophysical models to explore the role of local variability. At a broader level, we will evaluate the efficacy of different exist-ing tools that measure propagule dispersal within and between populations.

CASE STUDIES OF ONGOING PROJECTS

To illustrate the diversity of research activity and its poten-tial policy relevance, we present example projects from each ocean and CHONe’s three major research themes.

Case Study 1: Arctic Corridor Biodiversity

Declines in Arctic sea ice in response to climate change and ocean warming (Barber et al. 2009) are more evident than associated changes in the dynamics of biological processes (ACIA 2004; Smetacek and Nicol 2005). Studies show clear changes in Arctic marine mammals, polar bears, and fishes, but well-documented benthic examples are few (Wassmann et al. 2011). CHONe collaborates with ArcticNet, a Canadian Network of Centres of Excellence, to provide a baseline for long-term observations and studies needed to understand and document ongoing Arctic change.

The objectives of the Arctic study were to (1) assess mac-ro- and megabenthic faunal biodiversity in the Canadian Arctic; (2) compare Arctic biodiversity patterns in relation to potential environmental drivers (e.g., substrate, productivity, currents, etc.); and (3) estimate the strength and form of the relationship between biodiversity and habitat diversity (e.g., roughness) at multiple spatial scales (Figure 2). We used a variety of sampling gears and depths and compiled historical data (1955–2007) col-lected with similar sampling gear. Our new sampling added 315 species to the more than 1,307 contained in historical samples (see Archambault et al. 2010). This represents high richness relative to sampling effort (Bluhm et al. 2011; Piepenburg et al. 2011).

Ongoing new species discoveries and steep species accu-mulation curves (Figure 2; Archambault et al. 2010) in Canada’s Artic underscore our limited knowledge of marine benthos for many taxonomic groups and regions. Limited available taxo-nomic expertise in Canada (Council of Canadian Academies 2010) necessitates international taxonomic collaboration to im-prove our understanding of diversity in these ecosystems.

Application to Policy

These benthic species inventory data offer a baseline against which to measure future Arctic change. These same data feed CHONe’s effort to establish predictive relationships between diversity and habitat features such as rugosity or phys-ical complexity (e.g., Dunn and Halpin 2009), which are often

Figure 2. Top: Scientists deploy a corer designed to sample ice algae, which represents a key component of the Arctic benthic food web. Sam-pling through ice adds to the complexity of evaluating and understanding Arctic biodiversity. Photo credit: P. Archambault. Middle: A box corer is lowered to the seafloor from a surface ship to collect intact sediment samples for enumeration of fauna and to characterize sediments. Photo credit: M. Cusson. Bottom: Plot of infaunal taxa accumulation curves for the three Canadian ocean provinces. The top curve represents the rar-efaction curve for the combined three provinces, and the lower curve represents samples accumulated in stations within each ocean prov-ince (Canadian Arctic, eastern Canada, and western Canada). The steep jumps in the Arctic curve denote sharp changes in fauna composition. Figure reproduced from Archambault et al. (2010).


comparatively easier to measure than diversity over broad spatial scales. Indeed, habitat suitability mod-eling has proved successful for rockfish (Yoklavich et al. 2000; Williams and Ralston 2002), infaunal (Barros et al. 2004; Ramey et al. 2009), and hard-bottom benthic communities (Archambault and Bourget 1996). This information could support a national strategy for coral and sponge conservation (Campbell and Simms 2009), and this knowledge is relevant to recently proposed boundaries for a na-tional marine conservation area in Lancaster Sound. It could also help in assessing Canada’s progress to-ward its commitment to Convention on Biological Diversity 2020 and identifying indicator species as well as diversity, productivity, and function hotspots (see Table 1). This information can help to guide monitoring and prioritization of spatial manage-ment effort, advise on gear use issues, and support a Canadian Arctic Marine Biodiversity Monitoring Plan (Gill et al. 2011).

Case Study 2: New Tools for Acquisition and Analysis of Seabed Imagery

Expanding seabed resource exploitation and conservation efforts challenge ecologists to gather quantitative information on species and habitats over large areas, a task for which seafloor imagery from underwater vehicles is ideal (Auster 2005; Du Preez and Tunnicliffe 2011). CHONe is developing standardized field methods for remotely operated vehicle (ROVs) and, eventually, autonomous un-derwater vehicles to execute surveys that produce intercomparable data on biodiversity distributions. CHONe projects deployed the Canadian Scientific Submersible Facility vehicle ROPOS (see www.ropos.com) in variable terrain on the east and west coasts of Canada. We can image larger, mobile species such as fish with a forward-facing high-defi-nition video camera, and a downward-looking video camera and 10-megapixel still camera allow us to identify sedentary species down to 4 cm in size. We quantify organism densities and seafloor rugosity (linking with Theme 1 objectives) using lasers mounted with the cameras over transects with precise navigation (±1% of wa-ter depth).

Using Sameoto et al.’s (2008) methods, the CHONe West Coast project team parsed hours of imagery into a serial record of epifauna and fish for each transect at scales of 1 to 2 m2 of nonoverlappping seafloor (Du Preez and Tunnicliffe 2011; as illustrated in Figure 3). In a linked study, CHONe, the ROPOS team, and NEPTUNE Canada are developing interactive, re-mote searchable access to the ROV still imagery archive, with the capacity to add real-time searchable metadata to images.

Automated approaches can reduce workload and increase efficiency of analysis of repetitive images of the same seafloor

location, such as locating and counting specific organisms for time series analyses of communities. We developed an artifi-cial intelligence system based on prototype automatic analysis of aerial imagery (e.g., Edgington et al. 2006). The methods address problems such as recognition of megafauna on “clut-tered” substrata or abundant, overlapping organisms, and similar species. We are testing powerful artificial intelligence learning technologies (Weng and Hwang 2006) to recognize and count clams at methane seeps and fauna on canyon slopes colonized by deepwater corals. Our ultimate goal is to develop a complete tool to characterize marine biodiversity by efficient archiving and analysis of seabed imagery. Internet-accessible cabled observatories, such as VENUS (www.venus.uvic.ca) and NEPTUNE Canada (www.neptunecanada.ca), connect us-ers to cameras on the seafloor to execute site-specific seafloor

Figure 3. Top: Bottom transect image with lasers (10 cm between green dots and be-tween red dots) to map distributions of fish with respect to corals, sponges, and bot-tom features. Photo credit: Canadian Scientific Submersible Facility/Remotely Operated Platform for Ocean Sciences (CSSF/ROPOS). Bottom: An example of video annotation along a ROPOS 1-km transect. The 3,123 nonoverlapping records describe the epifauna cover and Scorpaenidae fish distribution on Learmonth Bank north of Haida Gwaii, Brit-ish Columbia. Transect begins at lower left of the figure and continues in a straight line, although it is broken into stacked “intervals” to display here. Each record represents ±0.33 m along the transect. The figure illustrates the distribution of two scorpaenid fish with respect to sponges. (From Du Preez and Tunnicliffe 2011.)


Marine biodiversity

Data sharing with partners—Data reports and distributional maps of …

Habitat, faunal abundance, and diversity baselines for broad geographic regions in all three oceansDatabases of diversity in relation to habitat complexity descriptors in a wide range of habitatsHigh-resolution seabed bathymetry from ROV-mounted sensorsDiscoveries of new species (and new families) and genetic barcoding of many others

Synthetic products and tools for scientists and managers

Advice for establishing and managing marine reserves/conservation areas in poorly known regionsComputer vision algorithms for benthic species recognitionMethods for quantifying impact of bottom trawling on epibenthic megafaunaReconstruction of history of inter- and intra-ocean connectivity for a range of marine fishes and crustaceans to help predict climate change response and inform spatial management strategies

Ecosystem function

For industry

Informal exchange of information with British Columbia aquaculture associationPresentations on science findings at the Aquaculture Association Canada & Réseau Aquaculture Québec Information on the threshold of sustainable density of aquaculture species with no net loss of productivity or function


Ichthyoplankton in the Strait of Georgia, British Columbia (2008–2010)Larval invertebrates in St. Georges Bay, Nova Scotia (2008–2011), including lobsterPhysical oceanography of St. Georges Bay, Nova Scotia (2009–2010) and Bonne Bay, NewfoundlandTubeworms and associated habitat characteristics at the Endeavour Hot Vents MPA Distribution and structure of mussel populations on the east coast of CanadaMovement and mortality patterns in juvenile codArctic and deep-sea macroinvertebrates and habitat distribution as a baseline for future change Abundances of rockfish, lingcod, and invertebrates abundance in 15 nearshore resource conservation areas that span different oceanographic regimes within the southern Strait of Georgia


Novel application of flow cytometry to study detrital and sediment bacterial ecologyDevelopment and use of the DalBlimp to describe distinct habitat types in eastern Canada and the Arctic at various spatial scales. Models of spatially structured ecosystems making explicit predictions about community structure and ecosystem functionsModels that accurately predict the dynamics of ecosystem phase shiftsModels of impact of species loss on ecosystem functioning for multiple ecosystemsModel to predict the optimal size and spacing of MPAs to maintain facilitative interactions between species and sustain key ecosystem servicesA long-term (17-year) database on alternative community states that can provide a basis for understanding spatial and temporal patterns in biodiversity Ground-truthing Parks Canada’s theoretical rockfish habitat model in British Columbia

Advice to partners on efficacy of current conservation areas and ocean management

Arctic Council Working Group on Conservation of Arctic Flora and FaunaReview of the National Energy Board’s Arctic safety and environmental offshore drilling requirements

Population connectivity

For industry

Informal exchange of information with fishers during fieldworkSemi-formal presentations to meetings of the Nova Scotia/Gulf Bonafide Fishermen’s AssociationFormal presentations and sessions at annual meetings of the Fishermen and Scientists Research Society For commercially important species, such as lobsters and rock crabs, biology of early life history stages (e.g., location in the water column, behavior, timing and duration of different stages, rates of loss/mortality), potential dispersal pathways, sources and sinks of recruits


Ichthyoplankton in the Strait of Georgia, British Columbia (2008–2010)Larval invertebrates in St. Georges Bay, Nova Scotia (2008–2011), including lobsterPhysical oceanography of St. Georges Bay, Nova Scotia (2009–2010) and Bonne Bay, Newfoundland (less detailed)Tubeworms and associated habitat characteristics at the Endeavour Hot Vents MPA Distribution and structure of mussel populations on the east coast of CanadaMovement and mortality patterns in juvenile cod


A flowchart of analytical approaches to evaluating connectivity and how to evaluate the efficacy of MPAs in achieving different management objectives given different dispersal potentialsA comparative cost–benefit analysis of different tools and metrics of the dispersal process (and thus of connectivity; e.g., ease of use, financial expense) that will allow managers to select those most appropriate for their specific applications to other locales and species

TABLE 1. Examples of some specific tools and strategies CHONe uses to inform policy.


studies. International collaborations used these tools to inves-tigate biorhythms at depth and analyze crustacean behavior in response to changes in oxygen levels and tidal signal (Matabos et al. 2011).


These image analysis tools can quickly and accurately evaluate the abundances and distributions of a wide range of benthic species and help define appropriate conservation strate-gies. Where conservation decisions require information on the distribution and dynamics of small organisms, the necessary fine-scale surveys require these efficient data gathering and processing techniques. Critical and vulnerable marine benthic habitats drive spatial planning efforts, and these tools can ef-ficiently delineate the poorly known distribution and spatial extent of these habitats.

Case Study 3: Metrics of Dispersal to Estimate Metapopulation Connectivity

Estimating connectivity within metapopulations depends on quantifying complex dispersal processes such as larval ad-vection, diffusion, swimming behavior, and loss (Bradbury and Snelgrove 2001; Metaxas 2001). Species with planktonic lar-vae are often genetically heterogeneous over short distances, compatible with local recruitment and occasional long-distance dispersal (Johnson and Black 2006). Because direct dispersal measurements are few, dispersal distances must be inferred

from covariates, such as larval stage duration (Thorson 1950; Kinlan and Gaines 2003; Bradbury et al. 2008), genetic struc-ture (Rousset 2004), and larval trajectory simulations (Siegel et al. 2003). However, scant biological details of many species (Metaxas and Saunders 2009) and demographic coupling both require better ecological information (Smith et al. 2009).

We are using several model species, including American lobster, Homarus americanus, in combined field and laboratory multidisciplinary studies (Figure 4) to compare estimated rates of dispersal as determined by several methodologies currently in use and to combine studies of biology, physics, genetics, and statistical methods to understand metapopulation dynamics of species with different early life history characteristics.

We measured larval concentrations of many invertebrates with contrasting life histories and larval swimming abilities and behaviors (lobsters, crabs, shrimp, snails, bivalves, bryo-zoans, and sea stars) in the water column during periods of peak larval abundance in and around St. Georges Bay, Nova Scotia. Sequential sampling at multiple stations along a trans-port trajectory quantified change in larval abundance and size frequency distribution. At some locations we sampled several depths to determine vertical distribution. We collected concur-rent measurements of temperature, salinity, and fluorescence and deployed current meters to quantify circulation. Addi-tionally, we are estimating dispersion directly using newly developed (Ruddick and Taggart 2006) magnetically attractive particles as a system of tiny Lagrangian drifters at the scale of


Membership on the Endeavour Hot Vents MPA Technical Advisory CommitteeEvaluations of rockfish conservation areas and the Saguenay–St. Lawrence Marine Park as larval sources or sinks for target speciesParticipation in Eastport (Newfoundland) lobster conservation area discussions

Across Themes

Synthetic products for scientists and managers

Geographic information system–based decision tools for MPAs and other spatial management strategies that incorporate ecological data with socioeconomic considerationsGeographic information system tools to delineate coastal ecosystems at regional scales to support agencies concerned with coastal impacts of development projects prior to activity

Highly qualified personnel with training in …

Coastal and open ocean field operations (vessels, oceanographic sampling, gear)Manipulative experimentationEcosystem and biophysical modeling, as well as complex statistical techniquesImagery and remote sensing analysesInterdisciplinary collaborationWorking and communicating with local stakeholdersParticipation in MPA process


Participation in International Council for the Exploration of the Sea working groups on aquaculture/environment interactions, benthic ecology, and marine biodiversity

Information for non-scientists

Press interviewsPublic outreach materials (web, videos), emphasizing poorly known habitats

TABLE 1. Continued.


individual larvae within the predicted larval dispersal domain. In the laboratory, we are measuring behavioral response to dif-ferent cues, such as thermal structure, turbulence, and light, to interpret larval distributions in the field. This strategy should yield more realistic numerical biophysical models of larval dis-persion that consider behavior, transport, other aspects of the physical environment (e.g., temperature and depth) as well as spawning location and timing.


Both fisheries management and ocean spatial planning seek to protect spawning populations likely to contribute to future re-cruitment. Although spawning locations are sometimes known, the relative contributions of different spawning populations to broader recruitment patterns are rarely documented. Without such knowledge, placement of fishery closures or MPAs may conserve spawners but not those that matter most to recruit-ment. The toolbox of techniques and novel dispersal metrics produced by our study of source/sink dynamics for St. George’s

Bay lobster, mussels, and other species may be ap-plied to a variety of species and locations. We will also produce a cost–benefit analysis for dispersal metrics with potential application to any species of interest to improve spatial planning and maximize benefits of fishery closures and MPAs.

Application and Significance of CHONe’s Scientific Outputs

The ultimate goal of ecosystem-based man-agement is to maintain an ecosystem in a healthy, productive, and resilient condition so that it can provide the services humans want and need (Rosenberg et al. 2005). The temporal and spa-tial scales of many studies are too small to guide management at ecosystem scales directly. How-ever, by explicitly incorporating policy relevance as one of the initial guideposts in developing re-search approaches, CHONe projects will be policy relevant. In addition to producing the many tools summarized above, CHONe will help develop a complete picture of marine ecosystems and their services that reflect a broad range of potential states (Rosenberg et al. 2005). CHONe has prioritized the few remaining pristine areas (e.g., Arctic, deep sea, continental slope, and wholly uninventoried areas; see Archambault et al. 2010) for study, providing needed baselines on ecosystem status.We believe that our network strategy will pro-vide a comprehensive set of innovative research approaches and decision support tools that can po-tentially inform policy decisions. We also believe that our network approach will greatly enhance the efficacy of this toolbox well beyond its individual components. Ultimately, the complexities of deci-sion making go far beyond science, but coordinated science advice can help to ensure that reliable and

diverse scientific information is readily available in a form use-ful to those who make those decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

Academic scientists frequently lament that they have no voice in policy decisions, and policy decision makers lament the lack of basic science knowledge on which to base their de-cisions. CHONe will address this disconnect with improved science tools and improved science–policy dialogue. CHONe asks its scientists to move beyond academic publications to communicate the relevance of their tools and discoveries to fisheries and ocean managers. This goal requires different lan-guage and communication venues, such as workshops with stakeholders, policy-oriented documents, and presentation of results in a framework appropriate for managers.

Canadian scientists in government labs and at universities have made significant progress in evaluating and understand-ing marine biodiversity (Archambault et al. 2010; Kelly et al.

Figure 4. Sampling design used in St George’s Bay, Nova Scotia, Canada, for case study 3. Contrasting symbols indicate sampling locations for different approaches. Neuston and plankton nets quantify larval abundance at sequential times (t1 and t2). Current ve-locities input to a biophysical model to forecast the distribution at t2 of particles seeded at t1. The distribution of field-collected magnetically attractive particles represents dis-persal kernels that then forecast distribution at t2 based on larval distributions at t1. We then compare predicted to observed distributions to evaluate each approach.


Bradbury, I. R., B. Laurel., P. V. R. Snelgrove, P. Bentzen, and S. E. Campana. 2008. Geographic, taxonomic, and life history bias in marine dispersal estimates. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 275:1803–1809.

Bradbury, I. R., and P. V. R. Snelgrove. 2001. Spatial and temporal distribution in benthic marine fish and invertebrates: the role of passive and active processes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58:811–823.

Campbell, J. S., and J. M. Simms. 2009. Status report on coral and sponge conservation in Canada. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Ottawa, Canada.

Carlton, J. T. 1996. Pattern, process, and prediction in marine invasion ecology. Biological Conservation 78:97–106.

Casey, J. M., and R. A. Myers. 1998. Near extinction of a large, widely distributed fish. Science 281:690–692.

Claudet, J., editor. 2011. Marine protected areas: a multidisciplinary approach (ecology, biodiversity and conservation). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Coakley, J. P., and D. J. Poulton. 1993. Source-related classification of St. Lawrence Estuary sediments based on spatial distribution of adsorbed contaminants. Estuaries 16:873–886.

Council of Canadian Academies. 2010. Canadian taxonomy: exploring biodiversity, creating opportunity. Council of Canadian Acade-mies, Ottawa.

Daan, N., V. Christensen, and P. M. Cury, editors. 2005. Quantitative ecosystem indicators for fisheries management. ICES Journal of Marine Science 62:307–614.

Dayton, P. K., S. F. Thrush, M. T. Agardy, and R. J. Hofman. 1995. Environmental effects of marine fishing. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 5:205–232.

Dunn, D. C., and P. N. Halpin. 2009. Rugosity-based regional mod-eling of hard-bottom habitat. Marine Ecology Progress Series 377:1–11.

Du Preez, C., and V. Tunnicliffe. 2011. Shortspine thornyhead and rockfish (Scorpaenidae) distribution in response to substratum, biological structures, and trawling. Marine Ecology Progress Se-ries 425:217–231.

Edgington, D. R., I. Kerkez, D. E. Cline, J. Mariette, M. A. Ranzato, and P. Perona. 2006. Detecting, tracking and classifying animals in underwater video. Proceedings of the IEEE International Con-ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). New York, NY.

Ellis, S. L. L. S. Incze, P. Lawton, H. Ojaveer, B. MacKenzie, C. R. Pitcher, T. C. Shirley, M. Eero, J. W. Tunnell, Jr., P. J. Doherty, and B. M. Zeller. 2011. Four regional marine biodiversity studies: approaches and contributions to ecosystem-based management. PLoS (Public Library of Science) [online serial]. 6(4) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0018997.

Folke, C., S. Carpenter, B. Walker, M. Scheffer, T. Elmqvist, L. Gunderson, and C. S. Holling. 2004. Regime shifts, resilience, and biodiversity in ecosystem management. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 35:557–581.

Frank, K. T., B. Petrie, J. S. Choi, and W. C. Leggett. 2005. Tro-phic cascades in a formerly cod-dominated ecosystem. Science 308:1621–1623.

Gill, M. J., K. Crane, R. Hindrum, P. Arneberg, I. Bysveen, N. V. Denisenko, V. Gofman, A. Grant-Friedman, G. Gudmundsson, R. R. Hopcroft, K. Iken, A. Labansen, O. S. Liubina, I. A. Mel-nikov, S. E. Moore, J. D. Reist, B. I. Sirenko, J. Stow, F. Ugarte, D. Vongraven, and J. Watkins. 2011. Arctic marine biodiversity monitoring plan (CBMP-MARINE PLAN), CAFF International Secretariat, CAFF Monitoring Series Report No. 3, Akureyri, Ice-land.

Halpern, B. S., S. Walbridge, K. A. Selkoe, C. V. Kappel, F. Micheli,

2010), but the immense size and complexity of the problem leaves many questions unanswered. The expanding mandate of ocean managers around the world during a time of shrinking budgets necessitates research collaboration more than ever, and the Canadian Healthy Oceans Network embraces this philoso-phy and opportunity.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

CHONe is funded by NSERC’s Strategic Network Grant program, with major ship time support from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The provincial government of Newfound-land and Labrador and Memorial University of Newfoundland provide additional major funding. Significant in-kind contribu-tions from ArcticNet, Parks Canada, the Canadian Museum of Nature, Huntsman Marine Lab’s Atlantic Reference Centre, and Natural Resources Canada also added to CHONe’s research ca-pacity. We also acknowledge workshop support from NSERC, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and Census of Marine Life that helped establish the program, and website services provided through the Center for Marine Biodiversity. We thank CHONe members and partners; case studies presented here in-clude material from researchers besides the authors, including C. Cameron, J. Chassé, R. Daigle, B. deYoung, C. Du Preez, J. Hrycik, M. Lloyd, F. Olivier, B. Ruddick, G. San Martin, R. Stanley, and C. Taggart.

REFERENCES

ACIA. 2004. Arctic climate impact assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Archambault, P., and E. Bourget. 1996. Scales of coastal heterogeneity and benthic intertidal species richness, diversity and abundance. Ma-rine Ecology Progress Series 136:111–121.

Archambault, P., P. V. R. Snelgrove, J. A. D. Fisher, J.-M. Gagnon, D. J. Garbary, M. Harvey, E. Kenchington, V. Lesage, M. Levesque, C. Lovejoy, D. Mackas, C. W. McKindsey, J. Nelson, P. Pepin, L. Piché, and M. Poulin. 2010. From sea to sea: Canada’s three oceans of biodiversity. PLoS (Public Library of Science) [online serial] 5(8). DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0012182.

Auster, P. J. 2005. Are deep-water corals important habitats for fishes? Pages 747–760 in A. Freiwald and J. M. Roberts, editors. Cold-water corals and ecosystems. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

Barber, D. G., R. Galley, M. G. Asplin, R. De Abreu, K. A. Warner, M. Pucko, M. Gupta, S. Prinsenberg, and S. Julien. 2009. Perennial pack ice in the southern Beaufort Sea was not as it appeared in the summer of 2009. Geophysical Research Letters 36:L24501.

Barros, F., A. J. Underwood, and P. Archambault. 2004. The influence of ripple marks on the structure of the benthic macrofaunal assemblages nearby rocky reefs. Estuarine, Coastal, and Shelf Science 60:781–790.

Beaumont, N. J., M. C. Austen, J. P. Atkins, D. Burdon, S. Degraer, T. P. Dentinho, S. Derous, P. Holm, T. Horton, E. van Ierland, A. H. Marboe, D. J. Starkey, M. Townsend, and T. Zarzycki. 2007. Identi-fication, definition and quantification of goods and services provided by marine biodiversity: implications for the ecosystem approach. Marine Pollution Bulletin 54:253–265.

Bluhm, B. A., W. G. Ambrose, M. Bergmann, L. M. Clough, A. V. Gebruk, C. Hasemann, K. Iken, M. Klages, I. R. MacDonald, P. E. Renaud, I. Schewe, T. Soltwedel, and M. Wlodarska-Kowalczuk. 2011. Diver-sity of the Arctic deep-sea benthos. Marine Biodiversity 41:87–107.


C. D’Agrosa, J. F. Bruno, K. S. Casey, C. Ebert, H. E. Fox, R. Fujita, D. Heinemann, H. S. Lenihan, E. M. Madin, M. T. Per-ry, E. R. Selig, M. Spalding, R. Steneck, and R. Watson. 2008. A global map of human impact on marine ecosystems. Science 319(5865):948–952.

Hutchings, J. A. 2000. Collapse and recovery of marine fishes. Nature 406:882–885.

Johnson, M. S., and R. Black. 2006. Islands increase genetic subdivi-sion and disrupt patterns of connectivity of intertidal snails in a complex archipelago. Evolution 60:2498–2506.

Kelly, N. E., E. K. Shea, A. Metaxas, R. L. Haedrich, and P. Auster. 2010. Biodiversity of the deep-sea continental margin bordering the Gulf of Maine (NW Atlantic): relationships among sub-re-gions and to shelf systems. PLoS (Public Library of Science) [serial online] 5(11). DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0013832.

Kinlan, B. P., and S. D. Gaines. 2003. Propagule dispersal in marine and terrestrial environments: a community perspective. Ecology 84:2007–2020.

Matabos, M., J. Aguzzi, K. Robert, C. Costa, P. Menesatti, J. B. Company, and S. K. Juniper. 2011. Multi-parametric study of be-havioural modulation in demersal decapods at the VENUS cabled observatory in Saanich Inlet, British Columbia, Canada. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. 401: 89–96.

Metaxas, A. 2001. Behaviour in flow: perspectives on the distribution and dispersion of meroplanktonic larvae in the water column. Ca-nadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58:86–98.

Metaxas, A., and M. Saunders. 2009. Quantifying the “bio-” com-ponents in biophysical models of invertebrate larval transport: advances and pitfalls. Biological Bulletin 216:257–272.

Oceans Act. 1996. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/O-2.4.pdfPiepenburg, D., P. Archambault, W. G. Ambrose, A. Blanchard, B. A.

Bluhm, M. L. Carroll, K. E. Conlan, M. Cusson, H. M. Feder, J. M. Grebmeier, S. C. Jewett, M. Lévesque, V. V. Petryashev, M. K. Sejr, B. I. Sirenko, and M. Włodarska-Kowalczuk. 2011. Biodiversity of the benthic macro- and megafauna of Arctic shelf seas—a pan-Arctic synopsis. Marine Biodiversity 41:51–70.

Prena, J., P. Schwinghamer, T. W. Rowell, D. C. Gordon, Jr., K. D. Gilkinson, W. P. Vass, and D. L. McKeown. 1999. Experimental otter trawling on a sandy bottom ecosystem of the Grand Banks of Newfoundland: analysis of trawl bycatch and effects on epi-fauna. Marine Ecology Progress Series 101:107–124.

Quijon, P. A., and P. V. R. Snelgrove. 2005. Predation regulation of sedimentary faunal structure: potential effects of a fishery-in-duced switch in predators in a Newfoundland sub-Arctic fjord. Oecologia 144:125–136.

Raffaelli, D. G., and C. L. J. Frid, editors. 2010. Ecosystem ecology: a new synthesis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Ramey, P. A., J. P. Grassle, J. F. Grassle, and R. F. Petrecca. 2009. Small-scale, patchy distributions of infauna in hydrodynami-cally mobile continental shelf sands: do ripple crests and troughs support different communities? Continental Shelf Research 29:2222–2233.

Rice, J. C. 2005. Implementation of the ecosystem approach to fish-eries management—asynchronous co-evolution at the interface between science and policy. Marine Ecology Progress Series 300:265–270.

Roberts, C. M., J. P. Hawkins, and F. R. Gell. 2011. The role of marine reserves in achieving sustainable fisheries. Philosophical Trans-actions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 360:123–132.

Rosenberg, A. A., W. J. Bolster, K. E. Alexander, W. B. Leavenworth, A. B. Cooper, and M. G. McKenzie. 2005. The history of ocean

resources: modeling cod biomass using historical records. Fron-tiers in Ecology and Evolution 3:84–90.

Rossong, M. A., P. J. Williams, M. Comeau, and J. Apaloo. 2006. Agonistic interactions between the invasive green crab, Carci-nus maenas (Linnaeus) and juvenile American lobster, Homarus americanus (Milne Edwards). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 329:281–288.

Rousset, F. 2004. Genetic structure and selection in subdivided popu-lations. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

Ruddick, B. R., and C. T. Taggart. 2006. Apparatus, system and method for evaluating fluid systems. U.S. Patent Application 20070015292. Filed July 18, 2006. Published January 18, 2007.

Sameoto, J. A., P. Lawton, and M. B. Strong. 2008. An approach to the development of a relational database and GIS applicable scheme for the analysis of video-based surveys of benthic habitats. Cana-dian Technical Report on Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2818. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa, Canada.

Saunders, M. I., A. Metaxas, and R. Filgueira. 2010. Implications of warming temperatures for population outbreaks of a nonin-digenous species in rocky subtidal ecosystems. Limnology and Oceanography 55:1627–1642.

Siegel, D. A., B. P. Kinlan, B. Gaylord, and S. D. Gaines. 2003. Lagrangian descriptions of marine larval dispersion. Marine Ecology Progress Series 260:83–96.

Smetacek, V., and S. Nicol. 2005. Polar ocean ecosystems in a chang-ing world. Nature 437:362–368.

Smith, G. K., F. Guichard, F. Petrović, and C. W. McKindsey. 2009. Using spatial statistics to infer scales of demographic connectivity between populations of the blue mussel, Mytilus spp. Limnology and Oceanography 54:970–977.

Snelgrove, P. V. R., M. Flitner, E. Urban, W. Ekau, M. Glaser, H. K. Lotze, K. Phillipart, P. Sompongchaiyakul, E. Yuwono, J. Mel-illo, M. Meybeck, N. Rabalais, and J. Zhang. 2008. Governance and management of ecosystem services in semi-enclosed marine systems. Pages 49–76 in E. R. Urban, Jr., B. Sundby, P. Malanette-Rizzoli, J. Melillo, editors. Watersheds, bays, and bounded seas: the science and management of semi-enclosed marine systems. Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) Series 70. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Species at Risk Act. 2002. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/ S-15.3.pdf

Thorson, G. 1950. Reproductive and larval ecology of marine bottom invertebrates. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophi-cal Society 25:1–45.

Wassmann, P., C. M. Duarte, S. Agustí, and M. K. Serj. 2011. Foot-prints of climate change in the Arctic marine ecosystem. Global Change Biology 17:1235–1249.

Weng, J., and W. S. Hwang. 2006. From neural networks to the brain: autonomous mental development. IEEE Computational Intelli-gence Magazine 1:15–31.

Williams, E. H., and S. Ralston. 2002. Distribution and co-occurrence of rockfishes (family: Sebastidae) over trawlable shelf and slope habitats of California and southern Oregon. Fisheries Bulletin 100:836–855.

Worm, B., and H. K. Lotze. 2009. Changes in marine biodiversity as an indicator of climate and global change. Pages 263–279 in T. Letcher, editor. Climate and global change: observed impacts on planet Earth. Elsevier, Amsterdam.

Yoklavich, M. M., H. G. Greene, D. E. Sullivan, R. N. Lea, and M. S. Love. 2000. Habitat associations of deep-water rockfishes in a submarine canyon: an example of a natural refuge. Fisheries Bulletin 98:625–641.


FEATUREFisheries Conservation and Management

A Riverscape Analysis Tool Developed to Assist Wild Salmon Conservation Across the North Pacific Rim

Una herramienta de análisis fluvial de-sarrollada para apoyar la conservación del salmón silvestre a lo largo de la cor-dillera del Pacífico Norte RESUMEN: Una de las limitantes en el manejo y con-servación del salmón silvestre es la enorme extensión geográfica y gran diversidad de ríos que proveen un hábitat crítico de agua dulce para la producción y sustentabilidad de estos peces. La extensión de dichos hábitats va desde ríos que atraviesan distintas jurisdicciones hasta otros que cruzan fronteras internacionales, y son sujetos a amplios rangos de climas, paisajes ecológicos e impactos huma-nos. Se desarrolló el Proyecto de Análisis Fluvial (PAF) para proveer una base de datos georeferenciada, consis-tente y de fácil comprensión para documentar, evaluar y comparar los hábitats físicos en los grandes ríos que alo-jan al salmón a lo largo de la cordillera del Pacífico Norte (CPN). En este trabajo se presentan un GIS y un sistema de apoyo para la toma de decisiones (SATD) que sirven para apoyar los esfuerzos de conservación del salmón a lo largo de la CPN. La base de datos del PAF consiste en un mosaico sistematizado de imágenes satelitales multies-pectrales de mediana resolución (30 m) derivadas de la serie de instrumentos Landsat-TM; las imágenes coinciden a una resolución de 90 m con la información digital del terreno (DEM). Estos datos producen una serie de rasgos físicos sobre las cuencas hidrográficas, los ríos y las plani-cies de inundación, así como también algunos indicadores del hábitat fluvial crítico para los salmones. El SATD del PAF está disponible en Internet (http://rap.ntsg.umt.edu) e incluye tutoriales y herramientas intuitivas que permiten al usuario comparar, cuestionar y descargar datos geoespa-ciales de distintas variables físicas.

ABSTRACT: A major constraint for management and conser-vation of wild salmon is the large geographic area and diversity of rivers that provide critical freshwater habitats for salmon production and sustainability. These habitats span lengths of entire river systems, crossing international borders and man-agement jurisdictions, while encompassing a range of climate and landscape conditions and human impacts. We developed the Riverscape Analysis Project (RAP) to provide a consistent and comprehensive geospatial database to document, assess, and compare the physical habitats of large salmon rivers of the North Pacific Rim (NPR). Here, we introduce and summarize a web-based GIS and decision support system (DSS) to assist salmon conservation around the NPR. The foundation of the RAP database is a seamless mosaic of moderate (30 m) res-olution, multispectral satellite imagery from the Landsat TM instrument series, mapped with coincident 90-m resolution digital terrain Digital Evaluation Model (DEM) information to a consistent global projection; these data produced a set of watershed, river, and floodplain physical features and derived riverine freshwater habitat metrics important for salmon. The

Diane C. WhitedFlathead Lake Biological Station, the University of Montana, 32125 Bio Station Lane, Polson, MT 59860-6815. E-mail: [email protected]

John S. KimballFlathead Lake Biological Station, the University of Montana, 32125 Bio Station Lane, Polson, MT 59860-6815

John A. LucotchFlathead Lake Biological Station, the University of Montana, 32125 Bio Station Lane, Polson, MT 59860-6815

Niels K. MaumeneeFlathead Lake Biological Station, the University of Montana, 32125 Bio Station Lane, Polson, MT 59860-6815

Huan WuFlathead Lake Biological Station, the University of Montana, 32125 Bio Station Lane, Polson, MT 59860-6815, and NASA GSFC/ESSIC, Univer-sity of Maryland, 5825 College Park, MD 20740-3823

Samantha D. ChilcoteFlathead Lake Biological Station, the University of Montana, 32125 Bio Station Lane, Polson, MT 59860-6815, and USFS, 360 Main St., Weaver-ville, CA 69093

Jack A. StanfordFlathead Lake Biological Station, the University of Montana, 32125 Bio Station Lane, Polson, MT 59860-6815

RAP DSS is publicly available online (http://rap.ntsg.umt.edu) and includes user-friendly tools and tutorials to allow users to compare, query, and download geospatial summary data across a suite of physical metrics.

INTRODUCTION

River and lake ecosystems of the North Pacific Rim (NPR) provide critical habitats for spawning and juvenile salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) and are necessary for the production and sustainability of wild salmon populations. Freshwater habitat abundance and distribution are generally poorly defined for the majority of the NPR and are increasingly influenced by hu-


man development and climate change, with potentially adverse consequences for salmon. Efforts to design and prioritize ef-fective conservation strategies have been hindered by a lack of comprehensive information throughout the NPR (Pinsky et al. 2009), especially the distribution of freshwater habitats and their relative quality for salmon production. Knowledge about the distribution, quantity, and quality of freshwater habitat is crucial for evaluating potential salmonid production, under-standing life history variation, and assessing and sustaining current salmon populations throughout the NPR (Finney et al. 2000; Mantua and Francis 2004; Zabel 2006). The large size of the NPR region (>3.4 million km2) and lack of a systematic and comprehensive database on available freshwater habitats, their general condition, and potential vulnerability to human development and climate change hinder salmon resource and conservation planning.

Despite the obvious importance of freshwater habitat, no comprehensive geospatial database exists for riverine ecosys-tems that encompass the NPR domain. Global data sets, such as the Freshwater Ecoregions of the World database (Abell et al. 2008) and Global Lakes and Wetlands Database (GLWD; Lehner and Doll 2004), use the best available data sources to describe the distribution of large lakes and wetlands and the biogeographical distribution of freshwater species (Augerot and Foley 2005; Abell et al. 2008). Localized databases, such as NetMap (Benda et al. 2007) and the Klamath (River) Resource Information System (KRIS), provide geographically focused information and databases relevant to fisheries and watershed systems in some areas of the Pacific Northwest. Some studies attempt to model high-quality salmon habitat by identifying key attributes of riverscapes (e.g., stream gradient, valley con-straint, riparian forest age) using a geographical information system (GIS; Lunetta et al. 1997; Burnett et al. 2007); another study identifies NPR catchments with high conservation values for salmon based on published literature, agency reports, and expert opinion (Pinsky et al. 2009). All of these databases pro-vide useful information; however, a consistent digital database of sufficient detail and spatial extent to adequately describe, compare, and analyze freshwater habitat across the NPR is lacking.

We developed a web-based decision support system (DSS) within a Riverscape Analysis Project (RAP) to assist salmon conservation, which is now available to the public (rap.ntsg.umt.edu); RAP provides a comprehensive classification of NPR rivers and potential freshwater habitats for juvenile salmon. A primary RAP objective was to develop a comprehensive geo-morphic database to evaluate the assertion that rivers with increased hydrogeomorphic complexity, especially those rivers with expansive floodplain habitat and valley bottom lakes, pro-mote life history diversity by segregating populations within a wide array of habitat types and support overall catchment pro-ductivity for the full suite of Pacific salmon and steelhead by maximizing spawning and rearing areas (Schindler et al. 2003; Stanford et al. 2003). However, we do not discount the impor-tance of headwater tributaries and other factors such as harvest and fertility from the import of marine nutrients via salmon

carcasses to sustained salmon productivity. More analyses are needed to fully understand such relationships, but many of the great NPR salmon river ecosystems are characterized by high habitat complexity as defined by the RAP metrics (Luck et al. 2010).

The RAP DSS provides a user-friendly web interface to an underlying geospatial database consisting of satellite (Landsat TM) remote sensing and digital terrain data, physical habitat and human footprint index maps, dynamic river flow and tem-perature simulations, and associated watershed and catchment rankings of physical habitat attributes and potential vulner-ability (i.e., effects of climate change) for salmon. The system provides data query tools for spatial analysis and information extraction from more than 1,500 NPR watersheds. The database includes physical metrics associated with river floodplains and lakes and daily river discharge and temperature modeled for historical (1970–1999) and projected future (to 2100) climate conditions (Elsner et al. 2010). The climate projections and associated hydrological simulations are based on Intergovern-mental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) AR4 global climate model (GCM) projections for the A1B (middle-of-the-road sce-nario relative to total human emissions) climate scenario (IPCC 2007). Together these data provide a means for a systematic ranking of river basins on the basis of their physical habitat characteristics and potential vulnerability to human develop-ment and climate change. The RAP DSS allows multiple users to access, view, and query the database in diverse ways. The sys-tem is designed and maintained to allow users to evaluate river physical habitat characteristics linked to salmon production and subsequently help guide resource evaluation and prioritization efforts for salmon conservation throughout the NPR.

THE RAP DATABASE

We designed the RAP system to address the need for a comprehensive database to describe and compare NPR basins on the basis of their freshwater habitat abundance, relative complexity, and potential vulnerability. The RAP database con-sists of watersheds that drain directly into the Sea of Okhotsk, Bering Sea, and the North Pacific and Arctic Oceans from Cali-fornia to the Kamchatka Peninsula in the Russian Federation (Luck et al. 2010). Although the current RAP database structure provides a comparison of watersheds across a wide range of watershed sizes, future enhancements to the system will enable additional comparison of smaller catchments within individual watersheds. The current system consists of a large geospatial database of raster, vector, and in situ data layers describing the physical habitat complexity of NPR watersheds. The RAP da-tabase covers four distinct regions (Kamchatka, Alaska, British Columbia, and the Continental United States) to preserve the spatial integrity (shape and area) of all features. We processed each region individually, but results are displayed in a contigu-ous Mercator projection accessible from the RAP DSS.

We structured the database within an ArcSDETM software platform with user-friendly web interface and software tools, allowing data to be easily queried. Foundational data include a


TABLE 1. Distance and maximum elevation thresholds used to set the maximum extent of floodplains by stream order.

Stream Order Mountain Elevation (m) Mountain Buffer Distance (m) Tundra Elevation (m) Tundra Buffer Distance (m)

1 1 300 1 400

2 1 600 2 800

3 1.5 1200 2.5 1200

4 2 1500 3 1800

5 2 1750 3 2400

6 3 2000 4 3600

>6 4 2500 4 4800

seamless mosaic of relatively cloud free satellite (Landsat TM) multispectral imagery at 30-m spatial resolution and a 90-m resolution DEM (Luck et al. 2010). Other RAP spatial data in-clude a human footprint index (Sanderson et al. 2002) and the locations of hydrologic gauging stations, habitat surveys, and glaciers.

DATABASE DEVELOPMENT

Stream and Watershed Delineation

We used the ArcHydro terrain processing functions (Maid-ment 2002) in ArcMap to establish an initial stream network and to delineate watershed boundaries. Many DEMs contain sink errors (i.e., depressions) or inconsistencies and thus pro-duce incorrect hydrologic areas. If a sink had a value of less than zero, the value was set to zero. If a sink value was greater than or equal to zero, the value was retained and a local flow path was manually digitized. These flow paths were then burned into the DEM using the reconditioning tool within ArcHydro. The stream network was then derived using a minimum catchment size of 20 km2 for channel initiation. The 20 km2 minimum size threshold was selected on the basis of providing the best depic-tion of regional stream networks when evaluated against open water features derived from Landsat image scenes. A Horton-Strahler stream order classification (Horton 1945; Strahler 1952) was then calculated for the DEM-defined stream network.

We defined outlets of large watersheds as locations where a river drains into the ocean or a coastal estuary. To identify and delineate watersheds, we used the catchment delineation tool in ArcHydro. We also established topology rules for wa-tershed delineations to correct misalignment of watershed boundaries caused by small errors in the DEM. The topology rules were as follows: (1) watershed polygons must not overlap and (2) no spatial gaps are permitted between adjacent water-shed polygons. These two rules provided an effective means for correcting DEM errors and minimizing the potential for overlapping watershed boundaries and spatial gaps commonly associated with watershed delineation.

Floodplain Delineation

Unregulated river floodplains are areas of large surface and groundwater exchanges, diverse environmental gradients, and

associated freshwater habitats important for juvenile salmon (Bisson et al. 2009; Eberle and Stanford 2010). We identified floodplains from the DEM using a modified ArcInfo™ and Arc Macro Language (AML)/C software tool developed by Scott Basset at the University of Nevada–Reno. The DEM-derived stream order and elevation information was used to identify floodplains and estimate floodplain areal extent based on lateral distances and maximum elevation thresholds perpendicular to and along the DEM-derived river flow path. For each stream order, buffer distances and maximum elevation thresholds were established to define the corresponding floodplain spatial ex-tent. Buffer distances and maximum elevation thresholds were increased for larger stream order categories to account for more extensive floodplain areas consistent with larger rivers. Differ-ent buffer distances and elevation thresholds were established for mountainous terrain and relatively flat tundra/boreal regions (Table 1). The coarse (90-m) spatial resolution of the global DEM generally lacked sufficient detail to accurately depict floodplains in relatively flat tundra/boreal areas, including por-tions of Kamchatka and western Alaska; therefore, we increased buffer distances and elevation thresholds in these areas and used a normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) derived from the Landsat imagery as an additional discriminator of riparian vegetation and floodplain area. We manually checked the flood-plain delineations to verify and correct floodplain boundaries. A minimum floodplain width of 150 m was also established to identify knickpoints (upstream and downstream areas of the floodplain where channel distribution is spatially constrained) to distinguish floodplains from adjacent constrained river reaches. Floodplains were also separated at river tributary junc-tions to eliminate large contiguous branching floodplains.

Open Water Classification

We identified and extracted open water areas within each watershed within classified floodplain boundaries using Land-sat multispectral satellite imagery. We first estimated potential open water extent under estimated bank-full conditions to mini-mize the potential effects of varying satellite image acquisition dates and associated river discharge and open water conditions represented in the Landsat image mosaics. An NDVI threshold of less than zero was used to distinguish open water areas, as well as scoured, nonvegetated areas adjacent to the river flow paths to estimate bank-full conditions. The minimum (less than zero) NDVI threshold and DEM were also used to identify large


lakes (>1 km2) throughout the NPR domain. Large lakes were identified as contiguous open water areas located outside of the floodplain boundaries. The resulting lake boundaries were manually checked and edited for errors.

Mid Channel and Channel Node Delineation

Nodes of flow divergence and convergence (e.g., channel intersections, tributary junctions) in river floodplains represent hotspots of biodiversity with enhanced local heterogeneity (Benda et al. 2004). Channel node densities are a useful indi-cator of complex floodplains with very high juvenile salmon densities in the Krutogorova and Kol Rivers in Kamchatka, Russian Federation (Stanford et al. 2003). Following the clas-sification of open water pixels within delineated floodplain areas, the raster grid–based open water mask was converted to a vector (polygon) feature class to facilitate additional vector analyses of river channel complexity. From this water feature

class, the centerline of all connected channels was identified using a Python script that approximates the centerline between opposite shorelines. The classification method uses Thies-sen polygons to determine the midpoint between two unique shorelines and generates a centerline vector connecting these points. Within the centerline feature class, main and secondary channels were then manually identified. The locations where main and secondary channels intersect were identified as chan-nel nodes (channel separations or returns; Figure 1). A point feature class was generated for each channel node and the rela-tive density and distribution of nodes was used to describe the degree of braiding or channel complexity within each flood-plain. Tributary nodes were distinguished from main channel nodes. Within each floodplain, channel lengths, main channel sinuosity, number of nodes, and mean floodplain elevation were calculated.

Stream Network Generation

The initial stream network defined from the DEM was use-ful in the subsequent delineation of floodplains. However, the resulting stream network delineation may not coincide with river channels identified from the satellite imagery and may oversimplify drainage patterns due to the relatively coarse (90-m) DEM resolution and propensity of the ArcHydro drainage delineation method to force drainage along valley margins where the slope shift between the valley bottom and adjacent uplands is more dramatic (Figure 2a). To enhance the stream network delineation, we used the main channel centerline ex-tracted from the Landsat-derived open water mask to adjust the location and sinuosity of the DEM-classified stream network. Using the main channel centerline derived from the delineated floodplain reaches and corresponding digitized drainage lines defined from the Landsat mosaic, a new drainage line was imported into the ArcHydro routines to build a new stream net-work. The new drainage line, consisting of the main channel centerline and digitized drainage lines, was first burned into the DEM using the DEM reconditioning tool in ArcHydro to gen-

Figure 1. Example delineation of the mid-channel approximation and main channel separations (nodes) superimposed on the associated Land-sat imagery for a representative section of the Kamchatka River, which is part of the larger RAP NPR domain.

Figure 2. Example stream network delineations on the Kwethluk River, Alaska. (Left) Initial stream network delineation generated within the ArcHydro module using only DEM data. (Right) Improved stream network delineated using the DEM and the main channel centerline generated from the classi-fied water mask. The main channel centerline was burned into the DEM to better represent the stream network.


erate a new enhanced DEM. This DEM was then used to build an improved stream network using the 20-km2 minimum catch-ment size threshold for channel initiation. This process more accurately depicts the true drainage pattern observed within the Landsat mosaic and provides a better representation of river channel lengths and drainage patterns (Figure 2b).

Metric Development

We derived physical metrics (e.g., floodplain area, channel sinuosity, watershed mean elevation) from the DEM, Landsat, and ancillary data to describe and compare the physical com-plexity of river systems. We developed metrics for watersheds, floodplains, lakes, and channel nodes, as described elsewhere (Luck et al. 2010). We also used a global data set encompassing the relative impact of human populations, roads, urban areas, navigable rivers, and agricultural land use to generate a human footprint index for the NPR domain (Sanderson et al. 2002). For each landscape element (e.g., watershed, floodplain), sev-eral metrics were generated describing general area and length features (e.g., size, perimeter), normalized features by basin size and river length (e.g., ratio of lake to watershed area, aver-age number of nodes per river kilometer), elevation relative to the corresponding basin outlet, number and density of habitat features (e.g., lakes), dominant land cover type (Arino et al. 2007), and human footprint index within each watershed.

Although we attempted to produce a high level of consis-tency and accuracy in the RAP database, classification errors

and associated uncertainty resulted from regional landscape heterogeneity, cloud, and atmosphere contamination of the sat-ellite imagery or lack of strong elevation relief in the DEM, which degraded the resulting floodplain and stream delinea-tions. The RAP database provides statistical information on the distribution and variability of individual metrics, including spatial range and standard deviation information. However, the open water classifications involve regional snapshots from satellite imagery acquired over different time periods, with po-tentially variable climate and hydrologic conditions that may cause spatial differences in metrics (e.g., proportion water, number of channel separations) between adjacent image scenes composing the larger Landsat regional mosaic. Despite these limitations, the RAP physical habitat metrics are congruent with finer scale assessments derived from other airborne and satellite remote sensing; rankings of 31 NPR floodplains based upon physical habitat characteristics are largely consistent using either fine scale (~2.4-m resolution) imagery or coarser Land-sat-derived habitat metrics from the RAP database (Whited et al. 2011). These results indicate that the RAP physical habitat classifications and associated basin rankings are robust and por-tray physical river and floodplain features found throughout the NPR domain with reasonable accuracy. Nevertheless, addition-al investigations are needed to document the spatial variation in the classification uncertainties and the potential cumulative effects of relative uncertainties in component metrics and data sets on the aggregate uncertainty of the basin physical habitat rankings.

Figure 3. Web page snapshot showing an example of the initiation of the sub-watershed tool, which allows users to specify any watershed outlet in the NPR (indicated by the green dot). Once selected, the tool determines the correct sub-watershed boundary and summarizes the physical metric data within the area of interest. The sub-watershed is displayed and the user is given the option to the download the summarized data.


The database includes several interactive tools to query, view, and extract summarized metric data based on selected watersheds, user-defined boundaries, salmon-related field data (e.g., sample site locations, temperature, water chemistry, fish counts), or stream pixels. Selected tools include the following:

• RAP watershed query: Query, access, and download data by watershed name (1,060 watersheds currently identi-fied).

• Sub-watershed delineation tool: Query, access, and download data by user-specified watershed outlet (Figure 3).

• Area of interest delineation tool: Access and download data within user-defined geographic boundaries.

• Pacific Northwest temperature and flow extraction query: Download daily stream temperature and discharge simu-lations for historic conditions and future climate change scenarios defined from IPCC AR4 climate predictions (IPCC 2007). Currently, climatic data are available only for the Pacific Northwest portion of the NPR do-main, though similar simulations for the entire NPR are planned.

Video tutorials, Federal Geographic Data Committee metadata, an FAQ (frequently asked questions) section, and a technical assistance form on the site assist users in the func-tional use of each tool.

RESULTS AND APPLICATIONS

The RAP DSS relies on the premise that juvenile salmon production is linked to river physical complexity, including floodplain habitat abundance and diversity. Initial analyses of the RAP database indicate that river physical complexity is a strong indicator of floodplain habitat abundance and diversity (Luck et al. 2010; Whited et al. 2011). River physical complex-ity metrics defined within RAP provide a surrogate measure of finer scale freshwater habitats and potential salmon produc-tion. The relative abundance of shallow water habitats (spring brooks and shallow shore) was found to be congruent between relatively coarse (30- to 90-m resolution) spatial scales repre-sented by the RAP database and finer scale floodplain features linked to juvenile salmon habitats (Whited et al. 2011). The RAP system distinguishes river channel separations (nodes), which are strong indicators of shallow shore and springbrook habitats, important for juvenile salmonids (Eberle and Stanford 2010).

Additionally, when RAP-derived spatial data are coupled with biological data, indicators and trends in salmonid pro-duction may emerge. For example, Ruggerone et al. (2010) applied RAP generated sub-watershed metrics and found that the amount of available floodplain habitat area in the Kuskok-wim River, Alaska, strongly influences coho salmon size during the first year in freshwater. Similarly, in a preliminary analy-sis, the RAP-defined channel separations (nodes) successfully reconstructed Chinook salmon runs in the major tributaries of the Kuskokwim River; these results also indicate a direct re-lationship between the number of channel nodes and salmon abundance (D. Gillikin, Yukon Delta NWR, personal commu-nication). Through the RAP web interface, biologists, fisheries managers, and conservationists can access, analyze, and down-load spatial data in an efficient and user-friendly environment to aid management and restoration efforts.

The following sections illustrate potential applications of the RAP database based on the assertion of a direct relationship between freshwater physical habitat complexity and potential production of juvenile salmonids.

Conservation Priorities

Conservation of productive salmon rivers and their associ-ated ecosystems are critical for protecting freshwater habitats and maintaining self-sustaining Pacific salmon populations. Preserving natural processes and protecting complex, healthy, and connected freshwater and estuarine habitats may provide the best insurance for the survival of wild salmon populations under changing climate conditions (Mantua and Francis 2004; Bisson et al. 2009). Using the RAP physical complexity metrics as a surrogate for habitat diversity and abundance, we ranked NPR watersheds based on a suite of physical metrics and the de-gree of human influence. The river basins were initially ranked according to the relative abundance, density, and distribution of key habitat elements, including floodplains, lakes, channel nodes (i.e., convergence and divergence locations), watershed structure (e.g., size, mean elevation, and elevation variance), and relative human impact. We ranked watersheds by including and excluding lake and open water body features to distinguish riverine and lacustrine habitat distributions. We also combined the resulting metrics into an overall physical ranking with equal weighting of the individual metrics. The metrics were normal-ized by watershed or floodplain area to facilitate regional and cross-basin comparisons (Luck et al. 2010). The overall rank-ings indicate that watersheds in Alaska and Kamchatka rank highly because they are the most physically complex with the least human impact, whereas watersheds in the continen-tal United States and British Columbia rank lower because of their lower proportion of floodplain habitats and more inten-sive human impacts relative to other NPR basins (Figure 4a). In addition, we ranked sub-watersheds of the Columbia Basin ac-cording to physical floodplain complexity and potential habitat vulnerability to projected climate change for selected salmon species. Using modeled stream flows and temperatures, we de-termined the percentage change in temperature from historic to future conditions for each river and defined thermal thresholds

Preserving natural processes and protecting complex, healthy, and connected freshwater and estuarine hab-itats may provide the best insurance for the survival of wild salmon populations under changing climate conditions


Figure 4. (A) Overall ranking of NPR watersheds based on their physical freshwater habitat complexity and relative human impact. The RAP geodata-base rankings (rap.ntsg.umt.edu) indicate that Alaska and Kamchatka watersheds are the most physically complex, with relatively low human impact; Alaska’s Bristol Bay area is a well-known native salmon stronghold with 4 of the top 10 highest rated NPR watersheds (i.e., Kvichak, Wood, Egegik, Ugashik). Continental United States watersheds are ranked lower due to relatively less available floodplain habitat and greater human impact. (B) Example regional ranking of Columbia Basin salmon vulnerability based on physical habitat metrics and potential habitat vulnerability to projected climate change; northern sub-watersheds show relatively more resilience to climate change due to greater habitat abundance and cooler predicted stream temperatures, although dams currently restrict fish access to many headwater streams.


for each salmon life history stage (i.e., spawning, incubation, and rearing; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2003) to develop a salmon stress index (SSI) for Chinook and coho salm-on species. The SSI describes the relative stress predicted under potential climate change for each salmon species and life histo-ry stage. We combined the SSI with the RAP floodplain channel complexity ranking of each watershed to develop a salmon vul-nerability index (SVI; Figure 4b). We developed the SSI and SVI to provide an example of how the climate models, physical metrics, and salmon life history data could be used to explore and compare potential climate impacts within the Columbia River; however, the rankings are preliminary and should be tested further. The underlying rationale for this is that compared to single-channel constrained rivers, floodplain rivers exhibit far greater habitat complexity (in-channel and laterally into the floodplain) and provide coldwater and warmwater refugia via enhanced groundwater–surface water exchange (Stanford et al. 2005b; Acuña and Tockner 2009). Within the Columbia Basin, northern subbasins had more resilience to climate change due to greater habitat abundance and cooler predicted stream tempera-tures (Figure 4b), although dams currently restrict fish access to many headwater streams (Stanford et al. 2005a).

The RAP-derived ranking maps, interactive tools, and the underlying geodatabase are intended to inform conserva-tion strategies and assist in the evaluation and prioritization of regional habitat conservation and restoration efforts. Several metrics could be generated over potential restoration areas to evaluate and compare potential habitat restoration value within and across sites. Rivers can be ranked for specific species based on their relative abundance/density of different habitat types, the amount and degree of migration barriers from the ocean or neighboring systems, and the degree of existing anthropogenic impacts. This type of ranking, coupled with the available cli-mate predictions, would provide an objective set of physical criteria for evaluating and prioritizing conservation and restora-tion efforts. For example, even if removal of a barrier allowed access to an abundance of potential floodplain habitats, current or projected future river temperatures and flow regimes for these areas may exceed optimal conditions or survival thresholds for salmon migration (Mantua et al. 2010), incubation, or rearing, thus reducing the potential benefits of restoration efforts.

River Restoration Potential

Billions of dollars have been spent on largely unsuccessful attempts at restoring diminishing salmon stocks (Lichatowich 1999). Despite these efforts and several international agree-ments to protect Pacific Salmon, wild, naturally producing populations continue to decline (Phelan 2003; Gustafson et al. 2007). Management strategies generally have limited ju-risdictional boundaries, focus on singular issues (e.g., harvest; Gregory and Bisson 1997) and typically ignore healthy pop-ulations in their conservation goals (Huntington et al. 1996). Successful management initiatives need to address the entire life history of salmon, accounting for both marine and fresh-

water habitats and preserving self-sustaining populations by protecting genetic diversity. Furthermore, process-based res-toration (e.g., restoring normative flows) activities that restore the physical, chemical, and biological processes that maintain natural variations in freshwater habitat conditions are inher-ently more sustainable over time and space (Beechie et al. 2010). Lost, degraded, or inaccessible freshwater habitat is considered a primary contributor to salmon declines along the Pacific Coast of North America (Nehlsen et al. 1991; National Research Council 1996). The RAP DSS provides a tool for as-sessing the freshwater habitat component of salmon life history and provides a means for objective assessment of potential hab-itat gains from various restoration efforts.

For example, two dams on the Elwha River on the Olympic Peninsula of Washington are scheduled for removal between 2011 and 2014 (McHenry and Pess 2008), and initial deconstruc-tion is already underway. These dams currently prevent salmon from migrating and accessing 70 km of upstream habitat. Using the RAP sub-watershed delineation tool, we can locate the posi-tion of these dams, calculate the potential upstream floodplain habitat areas above these locations, and estimate the amount of potential new habitat that dam removal could make accessible to salmon (Whited et al. 2011). These results indicate that dam removal could open over 450 ha of floodplain habitat to salm-on. The overall watershed ranking also indicates that the Elwha drainage is one of the highest ranked watersheds for potential physical habitat abundance in the continental United States por-tion of the NPR domain.

Scope and Limitations

Although we invested much effort in compiling the RAP database and ensuring consistent data and protocols across the NPR domain, users must recognize appropriate uses, scale, scope, and limitations of the database. First, the current RAP metrics and analyses are limited to larger rivers (i.e., greater than third order), and many headwater and lower order streams are not directly represented. The database is best suited for compar-ing relatively large watersheds across the NPR region. Second, many riverine features and attributes important for juvenile salmon (e.g., food availability, temperature, distribution of in-stream habitats—pools, riffles, shallow shorelines; Beechie and Henderson 2005; Quinn 2005; Eberle and Stanford 2010) are below the resolution and detection level of the current database. However, Whited et al. (2011) described how the RAP database estimates shallow water floodplain habitats (i.e., springbrooks and shallow shorelines) using scaling relationships between moderate (RAP) and relatively fine-scale geodatabases derived from more detailed remote sensing and habitat surveys. These results indicate the potential use of RAP to infer finer scale habitat characteristics across large regions. Third, the RAP da-tabase is primarily intended to describe, compare, and analyze physical attributes of riverine systems, whereas human impacts are treated in a very simplistic way. The database currently does not include socioeconomic and political factors.


Future Developments

The RAP database provides a static snapshot of riverine physical conditions as represented by moderate (30- to 90-m) resolution satellite (Landsat) remote sensing imagery and digi-tal terrain data. The database provides dynamic (daily) river flow and temperature simulations for a Pacific Northwest sub-region of the larger NPR domain and provides an indicator of dynamic habitat quality changes and potential vulnerability to future climate change. The database is designed to allow seamless integration of new data through the use of ArcSDE data versioning, thus providing opportunities for improved ac-curacy and information content. Future developments to the RAP system may include information on dams, diversions, and hatcheries; updates to the satellite image archive; finer scale ter-rain information; and flow and temperature projections for all NPR rivers.

CONCLUSIONS

Wild Pacific salmon populations vary drastically between years due to natural climate oscillations, ocean conditions, har-vest levels, and other factors, but the quality and abundance of available freshwater habitat is a fundamental aspect of conservation and sustainability. The RAP database provides a platform to describe and assess the physical characteristics of river systems, including habitat distribution, abundance and di-versity, and availability (Luck et al. 2010; Whited et al. 2011). Thus, the RAP DSS, particularly when coupled with more de-tailed information sources, such as site-specific enumeration of salmon adults, juveniles, and smolts, allows for consistent and objective river by river assessment and evaluation of potential benefits of adaptive management and conservation approaches for sustaining wild Pacific salmon.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was funded by a grant from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, Palo Alto, California. We also thank Tom Bansak, Sarah O’Neal, and three anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful input on this manuscript.

REFERENCES

Abell, R., M. L. Thieme, C. Revenga, M. Bryer, M. Kottelat, N. Bogutskaya, B. Coad, N. Mandrak, S. C. Balderas, W. Bussing, M. L. J. Stiassny, P. Skelton, G. R. Allen, P. Unmack, A. Naseka, R. Ng, N. Sindorf, J. Robertson, E. Armijo, J. V. Higgins, T. J. Heibel, E. Wikramanayake, D. Olson, H. L. Lopez, R. E. Reis, J. G. Lundberg, M. H. S. Perez, and P. Petry. 2008. Freshwater ecoregions of the world: a new map of biogeographic units for freshwater biodiversity conservation. BioScience 58(5):403–414.

Acuña, V., and K. Tockner. 2009. Surface–subsurface water exchange rates along alluvial river reaches control the thermal patterns in an alpine river network. Freshwater Biology 54(2):306–320.

Arino, O., D. Gross, F. Ranera, L. Bourg, M. Leroy, P. Bicheron, J. Latham, A. D. Gregorio, C. Brockman, R. Witt, P. Defourny, C. Vancutsem, M. Herold, J. Sambale, F. Archard, L. Duriex, S. Plummer, and J. Weber. 2007. Pages 2412–2415 in Geoscience

and Remote Sensing Symposium, 2007. IGARSS 2007. IEEE International.

Augerot, X., and D. N. Foley. 2005. Atlas of Pacific salmon: the first map-based status assessment of salmon in the North Pacific. Uni-versity of California Press, Berkeley.

Beechie, E. M., and R. Henderson. 2005. A classification of habitat types in a large river and their use by juvenile salmonids. Transac-tions of the American Fisheries Society 134:717–729.

Beechie, T. J., D. A. Sear, J. D. Olden, G. R. Pess, J. M. Buffington, H. Moir, P. Roni, and M. M. Pollock. 2010. Process-based principles for restoring river ecosystems. BioScience 60(3):209–222.

Benda, L. E., D. J. Miller, K. Andras, P. Bigelow, G. Reeves, and D. Michael. 2007. NetMap: a new tool in support of watershed sci-ence and resource management. Forest Science 52:206–219.

Benda, L. E., N. L. Poff, D. Miller, T. Dunne, G. Reeves, G. Pess, and M. Pollock. 2004. The network dynamics hypothesis: how channel networks structure riverine habitats. BioScience 54(5):413–427.

Bisson, P. A., J. B. Dunham, and G. H. Reeves. 2009. Freshwater eco-systems and resilience of Pacific salmon: habitat management based on natural variability. Ecology and Society 14(1):45. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/issu1/art45

Burnett, K. M., G. H. Reeves, D. J. Miller, S. Clarke, K. Vance-Bor-land, and K. Christiansen. 2007. Distribution of salmon-habitat potential relative to landscape characteristics and implications for conservation. Ecological Applications 17(1):66–80.

Eberle, L. C., and J. A. Stanford. 2010. Importance and seasonal avail-ability of terrestrial invertebrates as prey for juvenile salmonids on the in floodplain spring brooks of the Kol River (Kamchatka, Russian Federation). River Research and Applications 26(6):682–694.

Elsner, M., L. Cuo, N. Voisin, J. Deems, A. Hamlet, J. Vano, K. Mick-elson, S.-Y. Lee, and D. Lettenmaier. 2010. Implications of 21st century climate change for the hydrology of Washington State. Climatic Change 102(1):225–260.

Finney, B. P., I. Gregory-Eaves, J. Sweetman, M. S. V. Douglas, and J. P. Smol. 2000. Impacts of climatic change and fishing on Pacific salmon abundance over the past 300 years. Science 290:795–799.

Gregory, S. V., and P. A. Bisson. 1997. Degradation and loss of anad-romous salmonid habitat in the Pacific Northwest. Pages 277–314 in D. J. Stouder, P. A. Bisson, and R. J. Naiman, editors. Pacific salmon and their ecosystems, status and future options. Chapman and Hall, New York.

Gustafson, R. G., R. S. Waples, J. M. Myers, L. Weitkamp, G. J. Bryant, O. W. Johnson, and J. J. Hard. 2007. Pacific salmon ex-tinctions: quantifying lost and remaining diversity. Conservation Biology 21:1009–1020.

Horton, R. E. 1945. Erosional development of streams and their drain-age basins: hydrophysical approach to quantitative morphology. Bulletin of the Geological Society of America 56:275–370.

Huntington, C., W. Nehlsen, and J. Bowers. 1996. A survey of healthy native stocks of anadromous salmonids in the Pacific Northwest and California. Fisheries 21(3):6–14.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group 1 to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmen-tal Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge, UK.

Lehner, B., and P. Doll. 2004. Development and validation of global database of lakes, reservoirs and wetlands. Journal of Hydrology 296:1–22.

Lichatowich, J. 1999. Salmon without rivers: a history of the Pacific salmon crisis. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Luck, M. A., N. Maumenee, D. Whited, J. Lucotch, S. Chilcote, M. Lorang, D. Goodman, K. McDonald, J. Kimball, and J. Stanford.


2010. Remote sensing analysis of physical complexity of North Pacific Rim rivers to assist wild salmon conservation. Earth Sur-face Processes and Landforms 35:1330–1342.

Lunetta, R. S., B. L. Cosentino, D. R. Montgomery, E. M. Beamer, and T. J. Beechie. 1997. GIS-based evaluation of salmon habitat in the Pacific Northwest. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 63(10):1219–1229.

Maidment, D. R. 2002. ArcHydro: GIS for water resources. ESRI Press. Redlands, CA.

Mantua, N., I. Tohver, and A. Hamlet. 2010. Climate change impacts on streamflow extremes and summertime stream temperature and their possible consequences for freshwater salmon habitat in Washington State. Climatic Change 102(1):187–223.

Mantua, N. J., and R. C. Francis. 2004. Natural climate insurance for Pacific Northwest salmon and salmon fisheries: finding our way through the entangled bank. Pages 127–140 in E. E. Knudsen and D. MacDonald, editors. Fish in our future? Perspectives on fisher-ies sustainability. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

McHenry, M. L., and G. R. Pess. 2008. An overview of monitoring options for assessing the response of salmonids and their aquatic ecosystems in the Elwha River following dam removal. Northwest Science 82:29–47.

NRC (National Research Council). 1996. The Bering Sea ecosystem. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.

Nehlsen, W., J. E. Williams, and J. A. Lichatowich. 1991. Pacific salm-on at the crossroads: stocks at risk from California, Oregon, Idaho and Washington. Fisheries 16(2):4–21.

Phelan, S. 2003. A Pacific Rim approach to salmon management: redefining the role of Pacific salmon international consensus. En-vironment Law 33:247–289.

Pinsky, M. L., D. B. Springmeyer, M. N. Goslin, and X. Augerot. 2009. Range-wide selection of catchments for Pacific salmon conserva-tion. Conservation Biology 23(3):680–691.

Quinn, T. P. 2005. The behavior and ecology of Pacific salmon and trout. University of Washington, Seattle.

Ruggerone, G., B. A. Agler, and D. B. Molyneaux. 2010. Pro-ductivity of Kuskokwim juvenile coho, 2010 Arctic Yukon Kuskokwim Sustainable Salmon Initiative Project product. Available: http://69.93.224.39/~aykssi/wp-content/uploads/805-Ruggerone-FR.pdf. (June 2011).

Sanderson, E. W., M. Jaiteh, M. A. Levy, K. H. Redford, A. V. Wannebo, and G. Woolmer. 2002. The human footprint and the last of the wild. BioScience 52(10):891–904.

Schindler, D. E., M. D. Scheuerell, J. W. Moore, S. M. Gende, T. B. Francis, and W. J. Palen. 2003. Pacific salmon and the ecology of coastal ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 1(1):31–37.

Stanford, J. A., N. J. Gayeski, D. S. Pavlov, K. A. Savvaitova, and K. V. Kuzishchin. 2003. Biophysical complexity of the Krutogorova River (Kamchatka, Russia). Verhandlungen des Internationalen Verein Limnologie 28(3):1354–1361.

Stanford, J. A., F. R. Hauer, S. V. Gregory, and E. B. Snyder. 2005a. The Columbia River. Pages 591–653 in A. C. Benke and C. E. Cush-ing, editors. Rivers of North America. Elsevier/Academic Press, Boston.

Stanford, J. A., M. S. Lorang, and F. R. Hauer. 2005b. The shifting habi-tat mosaic of river ecosystems. Verhandlungen des Internationalen Verein Limnologie 29(1):123–136.

Strahler, A. N. 1952. Hypsometric (area-altitude) analysis of erosional topography. Geological Society of America Bulletin 63:1117–1142.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. EPA Region 10 guidance for Pacific Northwest state and tribal temperature water quality standards. EPA Region 10 Office of Water, Report 910-B-03-002.

Whited, D. C., J. S. Kimball, M. S. Lorang, and J. A. Stanford. 2011. Estimation of juvenile salmon habitat in Pacific Rim rivers using multiscalar remote sensing and geospatial analysis. River Research and Applications. DOI: 10.1002/rra.1585.

Zabel, R. W., M. D. Scheuerell, M. M. McClure, and J. G. Williams. 2006. The interplay between climate variability and density dependence in the population viability of Chinook salmon. Con-servation Biology 20(1):190–200.


FEATUREFisheries Education

Interactive Field Site Visits Can Help Students Translate Scientific Studies into Contextual Understanding

Visitas educativas en campoRESUMEN: En este artículo se describe cómo la apli-cación de métodos interactivos de aprendizaje, durante visitas guiadas en clase (1.5 h de duración) a un arroyo natural, capta la atención de los estudiantes de licenciatu-ra en cuanto a su capacidad de exploración de la ecología ripariana. Se describe también cómo una publicación so-bre un estudio realizado en el sitio visitado, sirve como una herramienta efectiva de aprendizaje para ayudar a los estudiantes a poner en contexto los resultados del estudio ecológico. Durante la excursión, los estudiantes trabaja-ron en grupos usando hojas de referencia con estaciones de muestreo y participaron a través de discusiones en las que relacionaban sus observaciones con los resultados en-contrados en el estudio. Un sondeo de opiniones anónimas aplicado a los estudiantes después de la salida de campo, reveló que las respuestas reflejaron el cumplimiento exi-toso de los objetivos de aprendizaje. Se discute cómo las salidas de campo han ido mejorando en el tiempo en cu-anto a la efectividad en el aprendizaje de los estudiantes, y cómo este tipo de actividades pudieran aplicarse a otros cursos de ecología y pesquerías, utilizando investigaciones locales.

ABSTRACT: This article describes how the interactive learn-ing methods employed during a short (1.5 h) class visit to a nearby stream engaged undergraduate students in their own exploration of riparian ecology. We describe how the use of a published field study conducted at this stream site served as an effective learning tool to help students contextualize ecological research-based findings. During the outing, students worked in groups using a “stream station worksheet” and participated in facilitated discussions to relate their observations to the findings of the published field study. An anonymous survey of students’ opinions after the site visit revealed positive responses, reflecting success in achieving the desired learning objectives. We discuss how the site visit has been enhanced from previous years to increase effective student learning and how this type of activity could be applied to other ecology or fisheries courses by utilizing appropriately chosen local research.

INTRODUCTIONIn many undergraduate science biology or ecology courses

the standard format for instruction is classroom-based lectures, in which students have little opportunity to connect theory with practice. However, recent pedagogical research suggests that providing students with the opportunity to participate more actively in the learning process is essential to effective teach-ing in science education (Healey and Jenkins 2000; Michael

J. M. BurtPacific Salmon Ecology and Conservation Laboratory, Centre for Applied Conservation Research, Department of Forest Sciences, University of Brit-ish Columbia, 2424 Main Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V6T 1Z4. E-mail: [email protected]

M. R. DonaldsonPacific Salmon Ecology and Conservation Laboratory, Centre for Applied Conservation Research, Department of Forest Sciences, University of Brit-ish Columbia, 2424 Main Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V6T 1Z4

K. A. HruskaBiology Department, Langara College, 100 West 49th Ave., Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V5Y 2Z6

S. G. HinchPacific Salmon Ecology and Conservation Laboratory, Centre for Applied Conservation Research, Department of Forest Sciences, University of Brit-ish Columbia, 2424 Main Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V6T 1Z4

J. S. RichardsonDepartment of Forest Sciences, University of British Columbia, 2424 Main Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V6T 1Z4

2006). A current trend in science education is the incorporation of experiential or active learning into science curricula, with an emphasis on student engagement and participation, creat-ing meaningful contexts for critical and creative thinking and skills development, and augmenting activities in which stu-dents actively collect and analyze information (Montgomery et al. 1997; Ryan and Campa 2000).

Field trips are often used in ecology and fisheries courses to provide students with experiential learning opportunities. Educational researchers have suggested that field trips or field-based learning help students to better comprehend and retain core concepts and cultivate enthusiasm for the subject matter (Manzanal et al. 1999; Janovy and Major 2009; Lei 2010). Field experiences provide students with the unique opportunity to get their hands dirty and develop data collection and analysis skills, which can inspire individuals to pursue research (Janovy and Major 2009). However, the manner in which field trips are conducted is important; student learning can be more effective if field activities are well planned and involve pretrip prepared-ness and posttrip reflection to encourage students to discover, collaborate, problem solve, and think critically and creatively (Lei 2010).


In upper level undergraduate ecology courses, students are increasingly exposed to research findings in lectures or asked to provide references to the primary literature in project reports. However, there is often little opportunity for students to gain an understanding of how experiments are conducted or the in-tricacies of field-based research. There is often a great deal of research conducted by university researchers at local field sites that may complement the course material (e.g., experiments in research forests, field experiments in nearby rivers or streams). Exposing students to these research settings may provide an ex-cellent opportunity to foster their interest in ecological research as well as help root their theoretical understandings of course content in applied contexts.

Herein we discuss a case study that (1) describes how in-teractive activities can be used during a field site visit to engage third-year students in learning about stream–riparian processes and small stream fish ecology and (2) demonstrates how center-ing this site visit around a published field study may provide a unique way to help students contextualize the scientific pro-cesses involved in field-based ecological research.

DEVELOPING A FIELD SITE VISIT: BACKGROUND TO THE MUSQUEAM CREEK OUTING

In the third-year University of British Columbia (UBC) undergraduate course Aquatic Ecosystems and Fish in Forested Watersheds, students examine stream, riparian, and forest eco-systems and study the processes and interactions that govern the dynamics of those processes. Particular focus is placed on the ecology and habitat requirements of salmonid fishes, with several lectures and labs emphasizing how forest practices such as riparian logging, the construction of roads and stream crossings, and the removal of large, instream wood can impact stream dynamics, which impact fish habitat and populations. In order for students to complement this knowledge with findings from published field research, students were asked to read the well-referenced article by Fausch and Northcote (1992), who studied the effects of forest practices on stream habitat and ju-venile salmonid density. This paper was purposefully chosen for the relevance of its content but also because the study’s field site, Musqueam Creek, was conveniently located only 5.8 km from UBC’s Vancouver campus in British Columbia, Canada. This site was furthermore applicable to the course material be-cause it is one of the last remaining urban streams in Vancouver that contains a naturally sustaining salmonid population and it provides observable examples of restoration efforts.

The overall goal of the site visit was to help students con-nect with the process of science in field ecology through relating the journal article to their field observations. This site visit also provided students with the opportunity to apply their lecture knowledge to a real stream environment where the effects of past forestry practices and recent restoration efforts were ob-servable. The learning objectives for the site visit are provided in Table 1.

Instruction during the Site Visit

Prior to the outing, students were asked to read the paper by Fausch and Northcote (1992) and write a summary para-graph (collected at the start of the site visit) outlining the study’s primary research questions, general methods, and principal findings. In this study, the authors compared stream reaches that had been cleared of large wood during park maintenance in the 1960s and 1970s (“simple” sites) to stream reaches that were left relatively undisturbed by forestry practices (“complex” sites). Their principal findings were that, as a result of large wood debris removal, simple stream sites were wider and less sinuous, had less pool volume and overhead cover, and con-tained less fish habitat resulting in lower fish biomass.

The site visit required 1.5 h and was facilitated by two teaching assistants who informally guided the students to a total of four predetermined “observation sites” along a 200-m sec-tion of the stream. Students worked in small groups of three or four and were given “stream station worksheets” for taking notes and guiding some of the observational activities at the sites (see supplementary material at http://www.tandflonline.com/UFSH). At each site, students were given time to make observations and work through the worksheet questions and activities. Teaching assistants then facilitated a discussion cen-tered on the students’ discoveries, conclusions, and questions.

At two of the observation sites, students were engaged in an activity related to the Fausch and Northcote (1992) Musqueam Creek study (learning objectives 1 and 2). Students visited one simple and one complex site and made observations regarding stream features that distinguished the sites from each other. For example, students frequently observed that the stream sinuosity was lower at the simple site. Students were not told which site was simple and which was complex but were asked to make this determination for themselves by sketching each stream reach and describing the instream features and habitat charac-teristics. During the discussion that followed, the students were asked to defend their decisions regarding which site was simple and which was complex using their observations as evidence. Students were also asked to critically discuss the methods and findings of the paper.

The site visit also took advantage of two other observation sites that demonstrated stream ecology processes learned dur-ing lectures. At the first site, students viewed a location where a road crossed the stream over an open-bottom culvert that had recently been modified from a non-embedded corrugated metal pipe. Here, they discussed the history of human alterations to Musqueam Creek and students observed/discussed the effects of stream road crossings and culverts on stream habitat and fish populations (learning objective 3). The fourth observation site served to illustrate the goals and techniques involved in stream restoration. In the past two decades, following the time in which the study was conducted, the stream has undergone many changes in response to local restoration efforts to enhance stream complexity. Students visited and made observations in a section containing log and boulder structures. They were given


a flowchart that depicts a “hierarchical strategy for prioritizing specific restoration activities” (Roni et al. 2002) which served as a focal point for a facilitated discussion on the central con-cepts and processes involved in stream restoration (learning objective 4).

Student Feedback on Musqueam Creek Visit

In 2009, students were asked to complete an anonymous and optional survey to provide feedback to the instructors. The survey consisted of five questions that required students to rate how well the learning objectives were met and to provide in-formation about their overall learning experience. Out of 78 students, 39 (50%) survey responses were returned and tabu-lated (Figure 1).

OBSERVATIONS AND DISCUSSION

In recent years, this field site visit has been redesigned to transform the outing away from its original “guided stream walk”—in which instructors mostly lectured to students as they toured past various stream locales—to a more interactive expe-rience. The first of these activity modifications was to provide students with clear learning objectives. This helped students to know what to expect from the field site visit and prepare them for later examination on material related to the site visit. The second modification was to switch from simply asking students to read the Fausch and Northcote (1992) study to requiring them to hand in a summary of the article’s methods and princi-pal findings. We found that, as a result of this small assignment, in comparison to previous years, students seemed better pre-pared to engage in a study design discussion and articulate their conclusions about the simple and complex stream reaches.

The third modification involved placing the instructor in the role of a facilitator rather than as a knowledgeable tour guide. The site visit was redesigned so that students would work in groups to actively make their own stream observations with the guidance of the stream station worksheet. For example, at the stream crossing site, students were asked to record their ob-servations from the intake and outlet areas and link their notes on channel morphology, bed substrate, and flow characteristics to how the culverts and crossings may negatively affect fish movement and habitat. At other stream sites corresponding to the Fausch and Northcote (1992) study, students sketched the stream reach, noting channel units, sinuosity, depth, flow, bank

stability, and potential fish habitat, and then used these observa-tions to later debate which reach was classified by the authors as simple and complex. It has been argued in the educational lit-erature that asking students to observe and argue their opinions, as well as critically analyze material, can more effectively en-gage them in higher levels of learning (Krathwohl 2002), which was a central goal in restructuring the site visit.

The key component of this field site visit was that it had been developed around a primary research article that was high-ly relevant to the course’s learning concepts. As students move into upper level undergraduate courses and are increasingly expected to reference and interpret information from primary literature sources, it may be a valuable experience for them to have the opportunity to contextualize a research paper by not only reading it but observing, experiencing, and discussing the design and results in situ. In the Musqueam Creek site visit, students were given the opportunity to go beyond extracting in-formation from the written Fausch and Northcote (1992) article to actually examining the study methods and design, as well as observing the potential challenges and obstacles inherent to ecological research. The desired outcome was that students reading future ecological publications might be more likely to ask critical questions such as, “How did the researchers actu-ally collect their information? What are the potential limitations and biases of the researcher’s field methods/results? Are the re-search findings still relevant today? Are there other factors or complexities within the system which could be given more at-tention?”

The Musqueam Creek site visit is an example of a short (~1.5 h) and logistically simple activity that has helped to get students out of the classroom and actively engaged in learn-ing about field-based research and stream/riparian ecology. The basic model of this study site visit could easily be adapted by ecology and fisheries instructors who have field sites or labo-ratories associated with published or continuing research that aligns with a particular course’s subject matter. Many universi-ties are affiliated with research stations or land where graduate students actively conduct research, often within close proximity of the university itself. The site visit described here could easily be adapted to enable undergraduate students to read relevant research papers in preparation of a site visit where they can experience and learn from the actual locations where the data were collected. Alternatively, if such research facilities are not in close proximity to the university, there may be city parks and

TABLE 1. Learning objectives for the Musqueam Creek field site visit.

By the end of the visit, the student should be able to:

1. Discuss and critique the methods and findings of the Fausch and Northcote (1992) study with reference to their own observations from the Musqueam Creek study field site.

2. Identify stream characteristics (e.g., habitat or channel units, sinuosity, wetted channel and bank-full widths, flow dynamics, canopy cover, substrate material, bank stability, fish habitat) at two different sites and discuss the influence of stream clearing practices (large wood removal) on these characteristics.

3. Identify at least three effects of stream crossings on channel characteristics and fish movement.

4. Identify the primary objective of stream restoration and list at least three restoration strategies that can be used to achieve this goal.


Figure 1. Student survey responses to learning outcomes for the Musqueam Creek site visit. Questions 1–4 asked whether students agreed that each learning objective (see Table 1) was met (SD = strongly disagree, D = disagree, N = neutral, A = agree, SA = strongly agree). The fifth question asked students to rate their overall learning experience on a scale from 1 = “bad learning experience” to 9 = “great learning experience.” A score of 5 was neutral; a score of 7 indicated a “good learning experience.”


other natural habitat nearby the university where students can read a relevant paper and engage in an interactive site visit that is designed to clarify key terminology and research methods. Students will not only benefit from a more engaged learning of course-related material, but site visits may aid in fostering interest to be involved in future field courses and research en-deavors.

In general, student survey responses expressed a positive attitude toward the Musqueam Creek field site visit, with the majority scoring the outing as 7 out of 9 in terms of overall learning experience. The survey revealed that the majority of students found that activities during the site visit helped them to better contextualize the Fausch and Northcote (1992) paper and to better understand stream processes and assessment terminol-ogy. An optional comments section on the survey sheet revealed that some students felt very positive about the field trip, with comments such as, “a nice change from indoor labs,” and “a good time frame, not too short or too long, definitely reinforced the Fausch and Northcote paper.” The survey responses and the survey comments, in addition to informal discussions with students after the site visit, suggested that the site visit was an enjoyable experience and was successful in achieving the out-lined learning objectives.

Though feedback was generally positive, commentary from several students indicated that they would have liked the site visit to be even more involved and hands on (i.e., partici-pating in an actual stream assessment, collecting habitat data, reconducting the Fausch and Northcote study, etc.). Unfortu-nately, this level of involvement is likely beyond the scope of an activity/outing scheduled during limited class hours (2-h time block). In addition, many other field courses are available in which students have the opportunity to be more involved with research methods and data collection.

In conclusion, associating the traditional classroom lecture with course-related ecological concepts in the field can be a fruitful learning experience. In this case, a site visit to Mus-queam Creek helped students to become more familiar with stream habitat characteristics, observe forestry impacts on streams and subsequent restoration activities, as well as contex-tualize the methods and relevant findings of a published stream ecology study. With the use of an appropriately chosen local research article or field site, the opportunity to directly connect undergraduate students with the scientific process and a peer-reviewed journal article can be applied to many other ecology courses.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

J. M. Burt was supported by a Natural Sciences and Engi-neering Research Council of Canada Graduate Scholarship, a UBC Faculty of Forestry Recruitment Fellowship, and a Mary and David Macaree Fellowship. We would also like to thank the 2009 cohort of FRST386 students who participated in provid-ing feedback about the field site visit.

REFERENCES

Fausch, K. D., and T. D. Northcote. 1992. Large woody debris and salmonid habitat in a small coastal British Columbia stream. Ca-nadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 49(4):682–693.

Healey, M., and A. Jenkins. 2000. Kolb’s experiential learning theory and its application in geography in higher education. Journal of Geography 99(5):185–195.

Janovy, J., and K. M. Major. 2009. Why we have field stations: reflec-tions on the cultivation of biologists. Bioscience 59(3):217–222.

Krathwohl, D. R. 2002. A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: an overview. Theory into Practice 41(4):212–218.

Lei, S. 2010. Assessment practices of advanced field ecology courses. Education 130(3):404–415.

Manzanal, R. F., L. M. R. Barreiro, and M. C. Jimenez. 1999. Rela-tionship between ecology fieldwork and student attitudes toward environmental protection. Journal of Research in Science Teach-ing 36(4):431–453.

Michael, J. 2006. Where’s the evidence that active learning works? Advances in Physiology Education 30(4):159–167.

Montgomery, K., S. Brown, and C. Deery. 1997. Simulations: using experiential learning to add relevancy and meaning to introduc-tory courses. Innovative Higher Education 21(3):217–229.

Roni, P., T. J. Beechie, R. E. Bilby, F. E. Leonetti, M. M. Pollock, and G. R. Pess. 2002. A review of stream restoration techniques and a hierarchical strategy for prioritizing restoration in Pacific North-west watersheds. American Fisheries Society 22(1):1–20.

Ryan, M. R., and H. Campa. 2000. Application of learner-based teach-ing innovations to enhance education in wildlife conservation. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(1):168–179.


STUDENT ANGLE

AFS 2011 Student Writing Contest—Honorable Mention Winner: Filth, Flows, and Family: Pressures Mount on a Rare Stream CatfishSteve MidwayNorth Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina. Present affiliation: University of North Carolina – Wilmington, North Carolina. Email: [email protected]

Slow, dark creeks cut through the agricultural checker-board of eastern North Carolina. Bands of tobacco, soybeans, and subdivisions divide the wide-open space—not unlike the light and dark stripes that adorn one of this area’s elusive and endemic stream fish, the Carolina madtom. Jordan and Meek first described this stout, 5-inch catfish in 1889, when it was found hiding under rocks in only two North Carolina water-sheds. They called it Noturus furiosus—furious for its powerful, envenomating sting, and perhaps a description of the first sam-pling trip. Over the past 120 years, the species has fought water pollution, altered flow, and family—the newly arrived and ravenous flathead catfish, its epigenetic cousin. Though the Carolina madtom is still holed up in parts of North Carolina, recent work has clearly demonstrated the species’ contracting range. A rigorous investigation into habitat use and availability would be critical to mapping out a future for this declining spe-cies.

Once considered abundant in both the Tar and Neuse watersheds—the entire species range—little hope and only a few isolated individuals remain in the now heavily urban-ized Neuse Basin. But the Tar Basin has fared better. Populations can still reliably be found and there is hope that with knowledge and steward-ship we can alleviate the pressure on this cryptic, imperiled fish. This all begged the question that initiated my master’s work at North Carolina State University: How do you go about protecting a species that you know virtually nothing about, much less a species without commercial importance?

You start from scratch; you find the fish.

This means night snorkeling, un-derwater snake spotting, and a grin when every one out of a hundred rocks you’ve nudged reveals this

prison-clad catfish standing its ground. For two summers I lived in 3 feet of tannin-stained water, measuring everything I could get my hands on. When I found a Carolina madtom, I noted its position in the stream, the water velocity, and what it used as cover. I also surveyed every square meter of several stream reaches of known habitat, in order to compare what the fish used with what was available. Finally, I deployed small, upside-down clay flowerpot bottoms (quickly known around the office as “madtom condos”) to explore the use of artificial cover for these shelter-obligate fish.

In the Tar watershed—the basin with stronger popula-tions—I reliably found these fish, often using my artificial cover design. In fact, they used it almost exclusively; only a few other transient species were ever detected inside. Much to my surprise, however, the Neuse watershed—the more urban basin with fewer madtom populations—contained plenty of ex-cellent physical habitat in places where the fish was no longer

Carolina madtom were commonly sampled using artificial clay cover structures, which they used at a much higher rate than any other stream fish. Photo credit: Steve Midway


found—a veritable ghost town. Clean, cobbled streams—once hotbeds for this cryptic catfish—held no Carolina madtoms and few other fish species.

If the habitat is there and the fish aren’t, what happened?

Likely, these biologically scant streams are recovering from a multitude of previous problems. Water quality in these streams has undoubtedly improved, which makes it plausi-ble that flows in previous decades washed over them a lethal solution of urban molecules too powerful for a small fish to handle. Dams also punctuated the riverscape to a greater de-gree than they do today, and Carolina madtom wouldn’t be the first species to suffer from habitat fragmentation as a result of impoundments and disrupted flows. We also know that maps of flathead catfish expansion strongly correlate with Carolina madtom extirpation. These biological vacuums have demon-strated that they eat more in introduced areas, and bite-sized, benthic catfish have shown up in their diet. Hooper could have been talking about flathead catfish in the movie Jaws: “What we are dealing with here is a perfect engine, an eating machine. It’s really a miracle of evolution. All this machine does is swim and eat and make little [catfish], and that’s all.”

Some Carolina madtom may have made it through his-torical water quality problems, and the good news is that there remains plenty of suitable habitat for reexpansion. The bad news is that flathead catfish are here to stay and are spreading like wildfire deeper and deeper into tributaries. We now have the critical habitat information to manage this endemic species, yet it could be too late; the interactive and long-term effects of poor water quality, artificial flows, and a biological bulldozer might be too much to overcome. Or, they could hunker down and put up a fight in hopes that conditions stabilize.

Time to get furious.

REFERENCES

Jaws. Dir. Steven Spielberg. Universal Pictures. 1975. Film.

Jordan, D.S. and S.E. Meek. 1889. Descriptions of fourteen species of fresh-water fishes collected by the U.S. Fish Commission in the summer of 1888. Proceedings of the United States National Museum 11:351–362.

Biology, Management, and Culture of Walleye and Sauger

Edited byBruce A. Barton 570 pages, index

List price: $79.00AFS Member price: $55.00Item Number: 550.65PPublished June 2011

This new compendium serves as a single comprehensive source of information on the biology, ecol-ogy, management, and culture of walleye and sauger in North America. Early chapters cover Sander systematics, including osteological evidence and molecular and population genetics and recent ad-vancements in stock identification. Extensive information is documented on habitat requirements for various life history stages and how these stages can be influenced by environmental perturbations. Other chapters describe environmental biology and feeding energetics, and provide details on wall-eye and sauger life histories, walleye population and community dynamics in lakes that reflect the influence of lake size, fishing methods, and various management techniques using case histories, and exploitation from recreational, commercial, aboriginal, and mixed fisheries.

TO ORDER:Online: www.afsbooks.orgAmerican Fisheries Societyc/o Books InternationalP.O. Box 605Herndon, VA 20172Phone: 703-661-1570Fax: 703-996-1010


UNIT NEWS

Idaho Chapter Holds Annual Meeting in Coeur d’Alene Joe DuPont

The Idaho chapter of the American Fisheries Society held its annual meeting in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, from March 6 to 9, 2012. The chapter began the meeting by holding a work-shop titled “Fish Without Borders,” which focused on factors affecting survival of populations of anadromous fish after they leave Idaho. This year’s plenary session was organized by the chapter’s president elect, Dmitri Vidergar, under the theme of “Non-native Species: Managing the Uncertainties” and fea-tured speakers from Arizona, Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. About 240 fisheries professionals from 44 different entities and a record-setting 52 students from five schools attended this meeting. The ever-growing student attendance, represented largely by the Idaho chapter’s two student subunits, the Palouse Unit (associated with the University of Idaho) and the Portneuf Unit (associated with Idaho State University), indicates that the Idaho chapter of the American Fisheries Society will be in good hands for years to come.

Special bookmarks were made by students in 11 elemen-tary schools from around the state to be given as registration gifts. These bookmarks displayed fish drawings and words of wisdom from each of the students. (Kudos to Lauri Monnot and the Education Committee for making this happen!)

During this meeting, there were 59 presentations, 23 post-ers, and a committee breakout session where eight different committees discussed and planned ways to meet the mission of the chapter. The chapter also recognized Christine Kozfkay and Matt Campbell as outstanding fisheries professionals; Christine Moffitt and Ned Horner with lifetime achievement awards; and many others for their contributions to fisheries.

The Idaho chapter boasts an amazing banquet that culmi-nates in an extraordinary fundraising effort. This fundraising event brings in over $15,000 annually, and this year was no exception. This money will provide support for the chapter’s many projects.

The chapter’s Executive Committee welcomes its newest members: Tom Curet, vice president; Craig Rabe, secretary/treasurer; and Brett Bowersox, nominations chair.

Next year, Idaho will be hosting the Western Division meeting in Boise, Idaho, from April 15 to 18, 2013. This meet-ing will also mark the Idaho chapter’s 50-year anniversary, so come join us for the enlightening talks and poster session, so-cialize with other fisheries students and professionals, and join in on the fun and festivities. It is shaping up to be an event not to forget.

Ernest Keeley, chapter past president, and Lubia Cajas de Gliniewicz, chapter member, present Christine Moffitt with the chapter’s Lifetime Achievement Award.

Ernest Keeley, chapter past president, and Jim Fredericks, chapter mem-ber, present Ned Horner with the chapter’s Lifetime Achievement Award.


Steve Elle, Mentoring Committee chair, presents Virgil Moore with the Outstanding Mentor Award. This award is one of several awards spon-sored and presented by the chapter’s committees.

Ernest Keeley, chapter past president, presents Matthew Campbell and Christine Kozfkay with the chapter’s Outstanding Fish Professional Award.

Chapter member Jeff Heindel shows off his fish bookmark. These book-marks were made by Idaho elementary and middle school students for those attending the annual meeting.

Cathy Gidley, Native Fish Committee cochair, presents Russ Thurow with the Richard L. Wallace Native Fish Conservationist of the Year Award. This award is one of several awards sponsored and presented by the chapter’s committees.


Ernest Keeley, chapter past president, presents Jason Vogel with the chapter’s Annual Merit Award for his service as chapter president.

Laura Hughes stands next to her poster at the poster session.


Leadership in the Hurricane of Change

COLUMNGuest Director’s Line

Jim MartinBerkley Conservation Institute, P.O. Box 1109, Mulino, OR 97042. E-mail: [email protected]

William W. TaylorCenter for Systems Integration and Sustainability, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824

Kelsey M. SchleeCenter for Systems Integration and Sustainability, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824

The winds of change in our conservation arena have accel-erated into a veritable hurricane as the economic well-being and associated political and funding priorities change at the state and federal levels of United States Government. The passage of H.R. 1 (thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/thomas) along with its policy riders that would negatively impact the environmental protec-tions passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in 2010 was a shock to our conservation community. The fiscal year 2011 budget that HR1 put forth to help address the increasingly large federal budget deficit required massive cuts in federally man-dated and funded conservation programs. In addition to these proposed cuts, the conservation community has experienced significant declines in general fund allocations in most, if not all, states, and declining fishing and hunting license revenues. This combination of proposed budget cuts and rollbacks of en-vironmental protection regulations, deemed by some politicians and industries as “job killing,” represents the greatest threat to the conservation of fish, wildlife, and water resources since the time of Spencer Baird and Theodore Roosevelt.

The serious consideration by our legislative stewards of such conservation-killing budget and policy initiatives is some-thing that most fisheries and wildlife professionals considered unthinkable at one time. As such, we have noted that some in the profession react as many people do when a huge storm comes ashore—they hunker down, believing that it is a pass-ing threat, not a permanent life-changing event. Others resign themselves to the inevitability of smaller budgets and less rel-evancy in the future, whereas others, like ourselves, refuse to sit down, shut up, and roll over in the face of these challeng-ing times. In fact, we believe that this is no time to shrink into the fetal position, but it is time for new, bold leadership, akin to what we saw demonstrated by such great conservationists of the past century as Theodore Roosevelt and Aldo Leopold. We must use this moment to transform our federal and state agencies to prepare for renewed relevancy to these conserva-tion challenges and economic realities. We need to speak out about the importance of conservation and outdoor recreation in the prosperity of our local, regional, and national economies and in our quality of life. The time to act is now. We must forge new partnerships if we are to meet the conservation challenges

of the future, including the lack of fresh water, loss of biodiver-sity, climate change, and the landscape impacts of development associated with human population growth on ecosystem goods and services.

LEADING CHANGE

Dr. John Kotter of Harvard University, an expert on or-ganizational transformation, outlines eight phases of change in his book Leading Change (Kotter, 1996) that we can use to empower our profession to evolve and meet present and future challenges.

1. Create a sense of urgency.2. Develop a guiding coalition.3. Develop a vision for change.4. Communicate the vision.5. Empower broad-based action.6. Generate short-term wins.7. Don’t let up.8. Make it stick in the organizational structure.

Today’s conservation professionals are faced with a sense of urgency like none other before, caused principally by two major forces: significant reductions in budget and expanding conservation challenges at all levels of governance. The tradi-tional state-by-state approach, primarily focusing on hunting and fishing programs, will not meet the challenge of climate change and landscape development trajectories nor the expec-tations of the public, which interacts with nature in different ways than previous generations. Hunting and fishing fees can-not possibly keep pace with the challenges of conservation in the future, especially when participation in these types of activities continues to decline. The prospect of general tax dol-lars or new fees filling the gap is bleak without broad public support. A key to this support is communicating the value of natural resources in a way that is relevant to consumptive and nonconsumptive users today. As conservation professionals, we must communicate how healthy environments—and conserva-tion programs—allow for a higher quality of life and prosperity for the nation. New, bold leadership and meaningful engage-


ment with our policy makers and constituents based on science and business metrics is needed in our profession now more than ever.

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE—THEODORE ROOSEVELT

Authors Timothy Egan (The Big Burn: Teddy Roosevelt and the Fire That Saved America, 2009) and Douglas Brinkley (The Wilderness Warrior: Theodore Roosevelt and the Crusade for America, 2009) detailed the story of conservation at the turn of the 20th century and the crucial leadership role that Theodore Roosevelt played in laying the framework for natural resource conservation in America. Roosevelt partnered with other vi-sionary and courageous leaders like Gifford Pinchot, George Bird Grinnell, John Muir, and John Burroughs to develop and communicate a vision for conservation. This vision ultimately included protection of public lands, fish, water, and wildlife and the development of a scientifically trained workforce to protect and manage the public trust assets for the future. Collectively, these men built a community of partners, such as the Boone and Crockett Club (www.boone-crockett.org), to lead political change in times that were dominated by big business, hyper-rich tycoons, political corruption, and patronage. Roosevelt and his partners produced far greater change under more trying circumstances than we face today and they did it with bold-ness and courage. They did not shrink from the challenges of the day related to the sustainability of our lands and associated biota but rather boldly and unapologetically laid the framework for conservation of the public’s assets based on scientific prin-ciples and ethical underpinnings that we are now faced with defending. Roosevelt spoke out from his “bully pulpit,” deliv-ering hundreds of whistle-stop speeches and using the media to carry his conservation vision to the public. Can we stand by and watch this conservation legacy be systematically dismantled in our time? Can we watch as the public trust resources we value so highly be undermined due to a lack of understanding about conservation’s direct link to our economy, jobs, and our quality of life? No, we should not and will not!

THE EXTERNAL MESSAGE— THE ECONOMY AND QUALITY OF LIFE

In today’s political climate, communicating the important role played by conservation, tourism, and outdoor recreation in our economy and our quality of life is critical. Programs that create jobs, contribute to the economy at the local and na-tional level, match funding from partners, and produce returns on investments will survive, and those that cannot will be lost. The good news is that there are excellent examples to cite from leading economic research studies (e.g., Southwick Associ-ates 2011). The bad news is that the public and our legislative leaders, for the most part, do not understand the facts and will not, unless we do a much better job of reaching them through the media and by offering reliable statistics about the business of fisheries and wildlife ecosystems goods and services. Only

then, by effectively communicating the link between a good quality of life to the economic importance of natural resources for outdoor recreation, livelihoods, subsistence, and ecosystem services, will we save and enhance the conservation framework that Roosevelt built.

A broad coalition of natural resource conservation, historic preservation, and outdoor recreation interests has come together to start to tell this story. Examples of this include the following:

• Conservation, recreation, and preservation, con-nected with 1,000 other organizations with the same interest, recently sent a letter of concern regarding fed-eral budget priorities (see Teddy Roosevelt Conservation Partnership article at www.trcp.org/media/press-release/massive-new-coalition-stands-up-for-federal-natural-re-source-conservation-o)

• According to Southwick Associates (2011), conservation, recreation, and preservation contribute roughly $1 trillion per year to our national economy.

• This contribution accounts for support for an estimated 9.4 million jobs—far more jobs, for instance, than resi-dential homebuilding in the United States (Southwick Associates 2011).

• Annually, hunters and fishers spend about $76 billion dol-lars on the outdoor sports they love (www.nssf.org/PDF/research/bright%20stars%20of%20the%20economy.pdf).

• The federal budget for conservation is roughly 1.2% of the total budget. It is down from double that percentage over the last 10 years.

• Hunters and anglers put roughly $1 billion a year in licenses and excise taxes on equipment toward conserva-tion and management of fish and wildlife. This comprises a huge match for federal dollars invested in fish and wildlife conservation. (For more information please visit www.ncsl.org/issues-research/env-res/ron-regan-q-and-a.aspx.)

The facts above will not impact political decisions relating to conservation budgets unless they are effectively commu-nicated to policy makers, together with a broad and diverse partnership of advocates. Together their partners must develop the local and regional facts that supplement the messages of America’s Voice for Conservation, Recreation and Preservation (see Teddy Roosevelt Conservation Partnership article at www.trcp.org/media/press-release/massive-new-coalition-stands-up-for-federal-natural-resource-conservation-o), and communicate how those facts are meaningful to society today. Teddy Roo-sevelt used his bully pulpit to communicate a vision for the future and now we must follow in his footsteps and achieve goals for tomorrow’s conservation agenda.


LEADERSHIP—THE AGENT OF TRANSFORMATION

As we fight to sustain resources for future generations, we need to focus on the leadership of our agencies and conserva-tion organizations. There are four key jobs for every leader right now, whether you are an agency director, a leader of a small team, or an individual professional. Today, everyone must be a leader, title or not.

1. Reinforce the values of our profession and your organi-zation. Whether talking about budget or work priorities, now is the time to relate each decision to the values of the organization and its mission. Values form the bedrock of our profession and should guide prioritization, staff train-ing, and recruitment.

2. Prioritize efforts and shift resources to accomplish the most critical work. We cannot do the new work if we are completely consumed with the old work. Leadership is about deciding what is most important and what needs to be deemphasized, allowing the organization to shift to emerging priorities. Anticipate the information needed to support important decisions in the future relating to climate change and development of land and water re-sources. Management of hunting and fishing based solely on the assessment of population numbers is not as critical today as it was in the era of market hunting and highly exploitive commercial fishing. It is time to shift the work priorities of our organizations to ensure relevance to the issues of the future and to broaden the constituency that will fight for resource survival and effective management programs.

3. There has never been a more important time for internal and external communications than now. This means broad-ened and expanded internal communications with our employees. They are afraid and likely do not understand the gravity of the situation yet. They need to hear from leaders as to how to deal with these unprecedented times and the potential for budget and socially driven change. They need to know how our actions will correspond with our values and our view of the future. We must remem-ber that stakeholders include the public—not just fishing and hunting license purchasers—and act accordingly. Expanded communications with constituent partners and with the public through the media are especially critical. Only those programs that are relevant to constituents who will support and fight for them are likely to survive the current crisis. We must broaden the constituency and our message if we are to create a movement and be relevant to a broader work plan. Fish, wildlife, and the sports person, along with the public’s interests, are founded on healthy ecosystems—something everyone has a stake in. We have to reach beyond traditional constituencies if we are to build a coalition that is powerful enough to fight for the needed budget and the correct environmental policies.

4. We must develop new approaches to funding natural re-source management and protection. Hunting and fishing fees are declining annually. As a result, most agencies are losing capacity, as our system is principally fee based. The funding structure must change or we believe that the entire system will likely collapse nationwide within 25 years; some state agencies are near this point today. Thus, if we are to be relevant in the future, we must broaden the conversation and the constituency in order to develop new funding mechanisms that provide for sustainable conser-vation.

Over the last 5 years, even during the recession, a num-ber of bond issues have overwhelmingly passed elections to fund open spaces, parks, and clean water initiatives. Each of these has benefited fish, wildlife, and people. None of these initiatives, however, were sold or framed solely around our traditional utilitarian values. Instead, they were supported by broad, diverse coalitions of sport-ing, environmental, and outdoor recreational interests. The message these groups communicated reflected a broad vision of healthy communities, open spaces, and intact watersheds, all of which are critical for a higher quality of life and more prosperous economy. The best example of this is the round table discussions conducted by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources over the last 10 years. This led to the campaign to fund bond issues that have expanded fish and wildlife funding. With-out the round table forum, there would never have been the broad-based public support required for the passage of this bond issue. There is an important message about con-stituency here. If we want to succeed in the future, we will need to fight for the budget required to do the important work. In this way, we will perpetuate the legacy propa-gated by our fearless conservations leaders of the past. To live on the shoulders of giants means that you must act like a giant when given the opportunity or the voice to make a difference. The time is now; if not you, then who?

MOVING FORWARD

Without the urgency created by the current federal and state funding crisis, it might have been difficult to shift the pri-orities, expand the diversity of the workforce, and broaden the constituency, as we must now do. This might be the silver lining of the storm cloud.

In Roosevelt’s time, the leaders were united by a sense of urgency and a new vision for conservation. They moved that vision into action and developed the organizations to institu-tionalize it “to make it stick,” as mentioned by Kotter (1996). We need to determine whether our organizations are still rel-evant to the challenges of the future and whether we can afford to fund them. If so, what do we expect from them? This ar-ticulation and need for meaningful societal-driven metrics will likely result in the transformation of organizations and agency structures.


Most important, we must maintain our passion and com-mitment to conservation. It is easy to become depressed with the prospect of budget cuts, staff reductions, and the loss of programs that we have spent a lifetime building. The energy of the leader is especially critical in influencing the morale of the team. Without energy and optimism, the team will falter and the opportunity for new possibilities will be missed. Above all else, leaders need to maintain their energy, their creativity, and their commitment to frequent energetic communications, internally and externally.

The metaphor of the storm still applies. Storms create fear. Storms create change. Storms destroy infrastructure. And from the rubble, new structure is built—stronger than ever. This hur-ricane of change, though scary for many, is the beginning of a transformation to new relevance and effectiveness for fish and wildlife management and a higher quality of life for all citizens. Today is the day that we must seize the moment! Our future and future generations depend on it.

REFERENCES

Brinkley, D. 2009. The wilderness warrior: Theodore Roosevelt and the crusade for America. HarperCollins, New York.

Egan, T. 2009. The big burn: Teddy Roosevelt and the fire that saved America. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Boston.

Kotter, J. P. 1996. Leading change. Harvard Business School, Boston.

Southwick Associates. 2011. The economics associated with outdoor recreation, natural resources conservation and historic pres-ervation in the United States. The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Washington, DC.

NEW AFS MEMBERS

Jeffrey AmbroseAndrew AndersonAaron AndrewsKatie AnweilerLuise ArmstrongRobert AustinShelley BanksMary Beth BillermanJim BrackettKamalakar ChatlaScott ChristensenMark ColawEmily ConantSarah ConlinKevin ConnallyKasha CoxMaureen DavidsonKatelyn DelahantyTyler FrankelAmber GarciaCory GardnerKatherine Gillies-RectorThomas GoodrichBryan GordonJason GostiauxChristopher GutmannNora HansonMartha HauffRyan HolemLaura HowellBenjamin KabelKevin KeretzNathan Kush

Amber LahtiJohn LauerPhillip LeeFranz LoislPaige LongJingjun LuTodd MalicoatHeath MasonKevin McAbeeChristopher McGuireDustin MossMark NemethLaura NesseMichael NorbergTim O”DonnellMahmoudreza OvissipourBrandon OwashiRyan PopowichKendra RobinsonCaleb RuyleChristina SloverMario SotoEric StadigHeather StewartAmy StintonKristina TrottaMarc TyeCharles WestAshley WestonRyan WhitworthJessica WrightCan Zhou


IN MEMORIAMLeslie Edward Whitesel

Leslie Edward Whitesel (“Ed”), 96, died February 25, 2012, in Traverse City, Mich-igan. Ed was born in West Seattle, Washington, and had a busy childhood; he was a newspaper carrier, lifeguard, Eagle Scout, and trumpet player in the Seattle All City Or-chestra. His fishery career started early when he began steelhead fishing with his father. After high school, he entered the University of Washington and earned a B.S. in fisheries in 1937. He worked at a Washington State fish hatchery in Spokane that summer and planned to attend graduate school in the fall. Instead, he accepted an offer from W. F. Thompson to work for the International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission (IPSFC) in British Columbia. Ed’s first assignment was on Cultus Lake under the direction of Earl Foerster, conducting research on the early life cycle of salmon. Later, Jack Kask and Bill Ricker were also involved with the project. Ed was fortunate to rub elbows with such leading salmon scientists so early in his career.

Ed was also fortunate to meet and marry Margaret MacLeod of Vancouver, British Columbia, in 1941. Considering that Marge’s father was a federal fisheries officer, Ed was lucky to pass muster. He also passed muster when he served as an officer in the U.S. Navy in the South Pacific from 1944 to 1946. After his military service, he returned to the Salmon Commission and continued his salmon research—the highlight of which was the publication he coauthored with Robert Clutter, “Collection and Interpretation of Sockeye Salmon Scales” (IPSFC Bulletin IX).

In 1955 he accepted a position in Juneau, Alaska, as a supervisory fishery management biologist with the Bureau of Sport Fish-eries, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. After Alaska gained statehood in 1959, there was a transitional period during which federal agencies were to divest their territorial responsibilities, and Ed saw to those concerning sport fisheries. In 1961 he transferred to the regional office of the Fish and Wildlife Service in Portland, Oregon, and was involved with federal aid. He administered the Dingell/Johnson Grant and Aide Program in seven states of the Pacific Region. In 1965 Ed became the federal aid coordinator in the Midwest region of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries in Ann Arbor, Michigan, where—along with other duties—he administered the Commercial Fisheries and Development Act (PL88-309). Under the Reorganization Plan of 1970, when Bureau of Commercial Fisheries became the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Ann Arbor staff was relocated to the northeast region in Glouscester, Massachusetts, where the federal aid program serviced 19 states from Maine to Virginia, as well as to the Great Lakes states.

In 1972, Ed got back to his first love—salmon. He rejoined the U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries in Stockton, California, and was the service’s representative on the four-agency study of the Sacramento–San Joaquin Estuary. The other participating agencies were the Bureau of Reclamation and the California Departments of Fish and Game and Water Resources. Ed designed a trawl that skimmed the surface in order to sample migrations of young salmon. He gave testimony at public hearings and counseled scientists working on the program. His role and contributions in the joint study—as well as his career-long professionalism and dedication—were recognized by the regional office when he retired in 1977 by the naming of a 40-foot research vessel after him—the Leslie Edward Whitesel.

A Canadian coworker from the 1940s remembered Ed: “He always was a favorite with field crews, as he would dig right in, no matter what you were doing, and offer his perspective on how these projects contributed to the aim of the Commission. To my mind he was a fine ambassador for IPSFC.” Indeed, remarks about Ed’s work ethics were echoed by others from among his countrywide contacts, and his role as an ambassador applied to all of the agencies he represented during his 40-year career. His goodwill attitude was also evident in his contributions and participation in the community and in his church.

Ed is survived by his two daughters, Sally (Leo) Miedler of Maumee, Ohio, and Leslie (John) Peck of Maple City, Michigan; five grandchildren; and eight great-grandchildren. A memorial service to celebrate Ed’s life was held March 24, at the Northern Lakes Community Church in Traverse City.

Bernard Einar Skud


AFS 2012 ANNUAL MEETING TOURS AND EATS

Tour of Historical Mississippi River SitesSunday, August 19, 2012 | 10:00 am to 1:00 pm | Sign-up deadline: June 29, 2012Take a van tour of the confluence of the Mississippi and Minnesota Rivers. Lead by National Park Service park rangers and naturalists, we will visit the floodplain forest, the historic city of Mendota, Historic Fort Snelling, and the beautiful Minnehaha waterfall. We will also make stops at various points related to native mussel restoration and Asian carp invasion. You can view the trip route at: g.co/maps/yg8d2

For more information or to sign up contact Mike Seider at (715)-682-6185 or [email protected]

Tour of the St. Anthony Falls LaboratoryFriday, August 24, 2012 | 9:00 am to 11:30 am Participants with an interest in stream geomorphology and ecology will enjoy the opportunity to tour the Outdoor StreamLab (OSL) located at the St. Anthony Falls Laboratory (SAFL) at the University of Minnesota. This unique state of the art facility provides the control characteristic of laboratory experiments in a field-scale outdoor setting, offering the unique opportunity to conduct full-scale experiments on the physical, chemical, and biological interactions between a channel, its floodplain, and vegetation. Because both water and sediment input can be controlled, this facility provides the means to conduct experiments and observe results that cannot be captured in an indoor flume or on a smaller scale.

Specifically, the OSL is being used to:• Quantify physical, chemical, and biological processes from microscopic to reach scales• Conduct hydrological and ecological field-scale experiments under controlled conditions• Verify emerging environmental restoration, monitoring, and renewable-energy-generating technologies• Enable highly visible formal and informal education.

Participants will also be able to visit the only waterfall on the Mississippi River in downtown Minneapolis. Bus transportation from and to the conference center will be provided.

For more information or to sign up, contact Brian Nerbonne at 651-259-5205 or [email protected].

Bike along the Mississippi River with a Park RangerFriday, August 24, 2012 | 9:00 am to 12:00 pm Circle the confluence of the Mississippi and Minnesota Rivers on a 14 mile loop. Lead by National Park Service park rangers and naturalists, riders will see the floodplain forest, the historic city of Mendota, Historic Fort Snelling, and the beautiful Minnehaha waterfall. Beginning and ending at the Boy Scouts’ Base Camp, near the Minneapolis Airport, the group will also make stops at various points related to native mussel restoration and Asian carp invasion. This route is almost exclusively on paved trails and an easy ride even for most people. Bikes and helmets will be provided. View the trip route at: g.co/maps/yg8d2

For more information or to sign up, contact Mike Seider at (715)-682-6185 or [email protected].

And Options for Dining Out...The Twin Cities offer a rich diversity of restaurants. There are a number of delicious options within walking distance of the RiverCentre and Crown Plaza. St. Paul historically attracted Irish immigrants, thus there are a number of Irish pubs and restaurants. Italian, Mexican, Vietnamese, Japanese, and Thai restaurants are also close; as are upscale restaurants, cafes, and hamburger joints. The Twin Cities’ Hmong, Somali, and other cultures further flavor dining choices. Expand your restaurant options beyond downtown Saint Paul by starting or ending your field trip or outing with a meal.

Rather than us highlighting particular restaurants and pubs, we encourage you to visit the Minneapolis St. Paul Magazine 2012 Best Restaurants Readers Poll: mspmag.com/dining/ The poll has categories for best service, Twin Cities institutions, neighborhood cafes, farm-to-the-table, bar dining, beer selection, and more.

Be sure to check in at AFS2012.org for more field trips and ideas for exploring Minnesota!


[Note] Movement of Radio-Tagged Adult Pa-cific Lampreys during a Large-Scale Fishway Ve-locity Experiment. Eric L. Johnson, Christopher C. Caudill, Matthew L. Keefer, Tami S. Clabough, Christopher A. Peery, Michael A. Jepson,and Mary L. Moser. 141: 571–579.

Risk of Predation, Varia-tion in Dissolved Oxygen, and their Impact upon Habitat Selection Deci-

sions by Fathead Minnow. Mark V. Abrahams and Jennifer Sloan. 141: 580–584.

The Role of Streamflow and Land Use in Limiting Oversummer Survival of Juvenile Steelhead in California Streams. Theodore E. Grantham, David A. Newburn, Michael A. McCarthy, and Adina M. Merenlender. 141: 585–598.

Effects of Entrainment and Bypass at Screened Irrigation Canals on Juvenile Steelhead. William G. Simpson and Kenneth G. Ostrand. 141: 599–609.

[Note] Prey Density and Nonvisual Feeding by Larval Striped Bass. J. Duston and T. Astatkie. 141: 610–614.

Synchronous Cycling of Ichthyophoniasis with Chinook Salmon Density Revealed during the Annual Yukon River Spawning Migration. Stanley Zuray, Richard Kocan, and Paul Hershberger. 141: 615–623.

Evaluation of Nature-Like and Technical Fishways for the Pas-sage of Alewives at Two Coastal Streams in New England. Abigail E. Franklin, Alex Haro, Theodore Castro-Santos, and John Noreika. 141: 624–637.

Discard Mortality Estimation of Yellowtail Flounder Using Reflex Action Mortality Predictors. Adam S. Barkley and Steven X. Cadrin. 141: 638–644.

Long-Term Dynamics of Native and Nonnative Fishes in the San Juan River, New Mexico and Utah, under a Partially Managed Flow Regime. Keith B. Gido and David L. Propst. 141: 645–659.Temporal and Spatial Genetic Consistency of Walleye Spawning Groups. Carol A. Stepien, Jo Ann Banda, Douglas M. Murphy, and Amanda E. Haponski. 141: 660–672.

[Note] Brown Trout Spawning Migration in Fragmented Central European Headwaters: Effect of Isolation by Artificial Obstacles and the Moon Phase. Ondřej Slavík, Pavel Horký, Tomáš Randák, Pavel Balvín, and Michal Bílý. 141: 673–680.

JOURNAL HIGHLIGHTSTransactions of the American Fisheries SocietyVolume 141, Number 3, May 2012

Seasonal Patterns in White Crappies’ Consumption and Growth: Influences of Varying Water Temperatures and Prey Availability. Paul H. Michaletz, Przemyslaw G. Bajer, and Robert S. Hayward. 141: 681–696.

Hydrogeographic Vicariance Determines the Genetic Structure of Northwestern Walleye Populations. Lindsey A. Burke, Richard M. Jobin, and David W. Coltman. 141: 697–706.

Recruitment of Juvenile Gags in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico and Factors Contributing to Observed Spatial and Temporal Patterns of Estuarine Occupancy. Theodore S. Switzer, Timothy C. MacDon-ald, Robert H. McMichael Jr., and Sean F. Keenan. 141: 707–719.

Spawning Behavior of Mountain Whitefish and Co-occurrence of Myxobolus cerebralis in the Blackfoot River Basin, Montana. Ron Pierce, Mike Davidson, and Craig Podner. 141: 720–730.

Habitat Suitability Modeling to Evaluate Conservation and Enhancement Efforts for Gulf-Strain Striped Bass in Missis-sippi Coastal Rivers. Jay W. Dieterich and Richard S. Fulford. 141: 731–746.

Contrasts in Habitat Characteristics and Life History Patterns of Oncorhynchus mykiss in California’s Central Coast and Central Valley. Susan M. Sogard, Joseph E. Merz, William H. Satterthwaite, Michael P. Beakes, David R. Swank, Erin M. Collins, Robert G. Titus, and Marc Mangel. 141: 747–760.

Characterizing Seasonal Habitat Use and Diel Vertical Activ-ity of Lake Whitefish in Clear Lake, Maine, as Determined with Acoustic Telemetry. Dimitry Gorsky, Joseph Zydlewski, and David Basley. 141: 761–771.

Energy Density of Bloaters in the Upper Great Lakes. Steven A. Pothoven, David B. Bunnell, Charles P. Madenjian, Owen T. Gor-man, and Edward F. Roseman. 141: 772–780.

State-Dependent Migration Timing and Use of Multiple Habitat Types in Anadromous Salmonids. William H. Satterthwaite, Sean A. Hayes, Joseph E. Merz, Susan M. Sogard, Danielle M. Frechette, and Marc Mangel. 141: 781–794.

[Note] Mitochondrial DNA Sequence Variation in Saugers. Mat-thew M. White. 141: 795–801.

Nutrient Enrichment with Salmon Carcass Analogs in the Co-lumbia River Basin, USA: A Stream Food Web Analysis. Andre E. Kohler, Todd N. Pearsons, Joseph S. Zendt, Matthew G. Mesa, Christopher L. Johnson, and Patrick J. Connolly. 141: 802–824.

Evaluating the Success of Arkansas Darter Translocations in Colorado: An Occupancy Sampling Approach. Matthew C. Groce, Larissa L. Bailey, and Kurt D. Fausch. 141: 825–840.

[Note] Laboratory Testing of a Modified Electroshocking System Designed for Deepwater Juvenile Lamprey Sampling. Robert Mueller, Evan Arntzen, Marc Nabelek, Ben Miller, Katherine Klett, and Ryan Harnish. 141: 841–845.

Age Determination, Growth, and Population Structure of the Striped Shiner and Duskystripe Shiner. Bryan R. Simmons and Daniel W. Beckman. 141: 846–854.


Advances in Fish Tagging and Marking Technology

Jeremy R. McKenzie,Bradford Parsons,Andrew C. Seitz, R. Keller Kopf,Matthew Mesa, andQuinton Phelps, editors

Fish marking and tracking is a fundamental tool for fisheries management and research. In recent years the technologies and analytical procedures avail-able 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.

560 pages, hardcoverList price: $79.00AFS Member price: $55.00Item Number: 540.76CPublished May 2012

TO ORDER:Online: www.afsbooks.org

American Fisheries Societyc/o Books InternationalP.O. Box 605Herndon, VA 20172Phone: 703-661-1570Fax: 703-996-1010


CALENDARFisheries Events

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].

(If space is available, events will also be printed in Fisheries magazine.)

More events listed at www.fisheries.org

DATE EVENT LOCATION WEBSITEJuly 25–27, 2012 International Conference on Fisheries and

Aquatic SciencesAmsterdam, Nether-lands

www.waset.org/conferences/2012/am-sterdam/icfas

July 31–August 3, 2012 AFS–Fish Health Section Meeting LaCrosse, WI www.afs-fhs.org/meetings/meetings.php

August 19–23, 2012 142nd Annual Meeting of the American Fisheries Society – Fisheries Networks: Building Ecological, Social, and Profes-sional Relationships

Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN

www.afs2012.org

August 24–26, 2012 Ninth International Conference on Recirculating Aquaculture

Roanoke, VA www.recircaqua.com/icra.html

September 1–5, 2012 AQUA 2012 Prague, Czech Republic

www.was.org/WasMeetings/meetings/Default.aspx?code=Aqua2012

September 17-21, 2012 ICES Annual Science Conference 2012 Bergen, Norway www.ices.dk

November 5–9, 2012 International Symposium on Fish Passages in South America

Toledo-Paraná, Brazil www.unioeste.br/eventos/sympass/

February 21–25, 2013 Aquaculture 2013 Nashville, TN www.was.org/WasMeetings/meetings/Default.aspx?code=AQ2013

April 8–12, 2013 7th International Fisheries Observer and Monitoring Conference (7th IFOMC)

Viña del Mar, Chile www.ifomc.com/


ERRATAIn the May 2012 issue of Fisheries (vol 37, no 5), there was an error in the Spanish translation of the abstract of the article “Patterns in Catch per Unit Effort of Native Prey Fish and Alien Piscivorous Fish in 7 Pacific Northwest USA Rivers” on page 201. The abstract should end with the sentence “Se concluye que, al menos durante los perío-dos de flujo reducido en el verano, los peces piscívoros foráneos se relacionan con reducciones poblacionales de las especies nativas y constituyen una amenaza potencial a la persistencia de las especies locales.”

In the same issue, there was an error in the Spanish transla-tion of the abstract of the article “Assessment of Freshwater Fish Assemblages and Their Habitats in the National Park Service System of the Southeastern United States” on page 212. The acronym SNP should be SPN (Servicio de Parques Nacionales).

We apologize to the authors for these errors.

Take our Fisheries Reader Survey!We do our best to serve you—our membership—and to do that, we need to know what you like and what you’d like to see done better. The feedback you’ll give us from this 5-10 minute survey will help us improve our mem-bership magazine/ journal—Fisheries. We appreciate your input and time.

Please visit our website here to access the survey: www.surveymonkey.com/s/DK7HR5H

Thanks for your consideration. If you have any questions about this survey, email managing editor: [email protected]

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTThe following is a motion approved by the AFS Governing Board at its 2012 midyear meeting. It requires membership approval. The motion will be put to a vote at the Annual Business Meeting in St. Paul.

(A) Recommended Motion: Amend AFS Constitution Ar-ticle IX Standing Committees to include Liaisons. (Note that Standing Committees are listed in alphabetical order; therefore, to add Liaisons, the following language will be inserted into M and the remaining committees will be moved down a letter, ending with CC):

M. LIAISONS enhance communication and coopera-tion between the Society and allied professional societies, councils, federations and boards.

(B) Minority View: None

(C) Background for Motion: This change will memorialize the ongoing appointment of Liaisons by the AFS President. This motion was approved unanimously by the Governing Board at the February 18, 2012 Mid-Year meeting.


ANNOUNCEMENTSJuly 2012 Jobs

Employers: to list a job opening on the AFS online job center sub-mit a position description, job title, agency/company, city, state, responsibilities, qualifications, salary, closing date, and contact information (maximum 150 words) to [email protected]. Online job announcements will be billed at $350 for 150 word increments. Please send billing information. Listings are free (150 words or less) for organizations with associate, official, and sustaining member-ships, and for individual members, who are faculty members, hiring graduate assistants. if space is available, jobs may also be printed in Fisheries magazine, free of additional charge.

Post Master’s Research AssociatePacific Northwest National LaboratoryPermanentSalary: Varied

Closing: Until filled

Responsibilities: Post Master’s Research Associate – Fisher-ies Biologis, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (Richland , Washington). Conduct research on the use of elemental and isotope signatures in fish to determine population origin, describe move-ment and migration, and characterize temperature history and bioenergetics. Assist with laboratory investigations to develop geo-chemical methods for marking fish. Responsibilities include field and lab work to collect and prepare samples for analysis, operate analytical equipment, maintain fish populations and aquaculture fa-cilities, data processing and analysis, and report writing.

Qualifications: The candidates will have a master’s degree in biology or a fisheries related field. Knowledge of fish ecology, geochemistry and mass spectrometry are desirable, as well as expe-rience with laboratory techniques for sample preparation of otoliths, fin rays and scales. Experience with fish culture, data management, statistical software and writing are also desirable.

Contact: Dr. David Geist, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Ecology Group, K6-85, Richland, WA

Email: [email protected]

Link: www.jobs.pnl.gov; reference job posting #301696

Project BiologistBritish Columbia, CanadaProfessionalSalary: Commensurate with experience

Closing: 7/31

Responsibilities: Conduct marine inventories and environmental assessments of foreshore, nearshore and offshore developments. Please refer to company website for full details of job posting.

Qualifications: B.Sc. in related discipline (Biology, Environmen-tal Sciences) with 5+ years working experience in environmental sciences or M.Sc. in related discipline (Biology, Environmental Sci-ences) with 2+ years working experience in environmental sciences. Strong working knowledge of British Columbia marine coastal biology and ecology. Demonstrated experience in project manage-ment and client relations. Proven ability and experience in business development. Demonstrated environmental assessment (EA) expe-rience including a strong knowledge of Canadian and Provincial EA regulations and processes. Demonstrated experience in technical report preparation. Worksafe BC recognized certified occupational SCUBA diver. Canadian citizenship, permanent residency or valid Canadian work permit/authorization.


Link: www.archipelago.ca/careers.aspx

MS Graduate Research AssistantDept of Natural Resource Management, South Dakota State UniversityStudentSalary: $17,200 (includes out-of-state tuition waiver)


Responsibilities: Seeking a highly motivated student interested in sturgeon ecology/fish energetics. Goals of the study are to quan-tify early life history attributes and energetics of the federally endangered pallid sturgeon. Interest or experience in fish ecology, foraging studies and bioenergetics modeling are desired. The stu-dent is expected to work closely with federal research biologists.

Qualifications: B.S. degree in fisheries science or related field; strong written and oral communication skills; interest/experi-ence with fish sampling; competitive GPA (>3.2) and GRE scores (>1,100).

Contact: Submit letter of interest, resume, and GRE scores to: Ste-ven R. Chipps, US Geological Survey, South Dakota Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Natural Resource Management, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD.


Link: www.coopunits.org/South_Dakota/index.html

M.S. or Ph.D. assistantshipDept of Wildlife, Fisheries & Aquaculture, Michigan State UniversityStudentSalary: $16,500 (M.S.) or $23,500 (Ph.D.) per year plus tuition and insurance


Responsibilities: The incumbent is expected to develop a thesis or dissertation topic within a multi-agency project focused on the assessment and advancing the knowledge of the biology of endan-gered pallid sturgeon and threatened shovelnose sturgeon in the Atchafalaya and lower Mississippi rivers. The incumbent will work as part of a team of graduate students and fisheries professionals working on pallid sturgeon and shovelnose sturgeon management and biology questions in large river environments.

Qualifications: B.A./B.S. or M.A./M.S. in biology, ecology, fisher-ies, or related field, 3.0 GPA, and GRE scores greater than 1000. Experience operating boats and working on large water bodies pre-ferred.


Link: www.cfr.msstate.edu/wildlife/index.asp


Executive DirectorNew England Fishery Management CouncilProfessional

Salary: $ 124,336–$155,500 annually

Closing: 8/31

Responsibilities: Supports Council and cooperating fishery man-agement, research and science organizations. Responsible for employment and supervision of staff in the translation of marine fishery management policies into fishery management plans (FMPs). Supports Council meetings including coordinating activities, main-taining records and activities and other duties normally associated with the directorate of such organizations. Responsible for ensuring that FMPs meet requirements of federal law and are submitted to the Secretary of Commerce in a form suitable for approval. Administers and manages a $4.0 million budget.

Qualifications: 8+ years of demanding responsibilities – particular-ly fisheries or natural resource management – in which experience in the administration and management has been established. A B.S. degree in fisheries management may be substituted for 2 of the 8 years. An advanced degree may be substituted for not more than 1 additional year of the 8 years.

Email: Karen Roy; [email protected]

Link: www.nefmc.org

Lakes TechnicianAquatic Eco-Systems, Inc., FLPermanent

Salary: DOE

Closing: 9/1

Responsibilities: The Lakes Technician is responsible for inter-preting technical customer requirements and providing technical support via the telephone. AES offers a culture with a casual dress code, flexible schedule and open door policy—and you can bring your kids and pets to work!

Qualifications:

• Associates Degree or Equivalent Experience

• 2-Years Related Industry Experience preferred (Fish Farm, Hatchery, Ponds, Lakes, Wastewater, Wetland)

• Dependable and Motivated

• Must possess excellent customer service, organizational and tele-phone skills

• Excellent Command of English Language (Bi-Lingual a plus)

• Intermediate Internet, MS Word, MS Excel Skills (Advanced Preferred)

• Multi Task Orientation

Email: Nancy Carrion; [email protected]

Link: www.aquaticeco.com

Assistant/Associate or Full ProfessorNorth Carolina State UniversityPermanent

Salary: TBD

Closing: until filled

Responsibilities: As one of the leading land-grant institutions in the nation, North Carolina State University is proud to announce its Chancellor’s Faculty Excellence Program, a cluster hire program that marks the first major initiative of the university’s 2011-2020 strategic plan, “The Pathway to the Future.” Starting in 2012, NC State will hire thirty-eight faculty in twelve research areas or “clus-ters” to promote interdisciplinary scholarship and the development of innovative curricula in emerging areas of strategic strength. As part of this university-wide program, the Department of Biology and the Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources are hiring a cluster of three faculty at any rank to provide leadership for a new initiative in Global Environmental Change and Human Well-Being. We seek leaders in any area of biology under this theme, and encourage applications from those who study global change as it relates to fisheries and aquatic diversity, quantitative ecology, evo-lutionary biology, or other areas. Successful applicants are expected to have a strong vision for their vibrant and extramurally-funded research program, a commitment to leadership in the area of Global Environmental Change, and demonstrated excellence and innova-tion in graduate education. This cluster will strengthen and bridge emerging initiatives at NC State including: 1) the Southeast Climate Science Center; 2) the Nature Research Center of the NC Museum of Natural Sciences; and 3) programs in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. More information on these positions and this initiative can be found at http://www.theglobalchangeforum.org/clusterhire/

Qualifications: We are targeting applicants already holding a posi-tion at the level of Assistant Professor or higher (or equivalent), but exceptional postdoctoral fellows also will be considered.

Contact: To apply for these positions, go to http://jobs.ncsu.edu/postings/7389 and provide a cover letter, curriculum vitae, and a 1-page vision for Global Environmental Change and Human Well-being, focused on your research program and/or building this programmatic theme at NC State. Confidential inquiries and nominations should be directed to Dr. Damian Shea, Search Chair, [email protected], 919-513-3065.

Review of applications will begin 15 August 2012 and continue un-til the positions are filled. We welcome applications from groups of individuals and dual-career couples and will work with candidates to identify suitable employment opportunities for spouses or part-ners.

ADA Accommodations: please call 919-515-3148.

NCSU is an AA/EO employer. All qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, veteran status or disability. In its commit-ment to diversity and equity, NC State University seeks applications from women, minorities, and persons with disabilities. NC State welcomes all persons without regard to sexual orientation.


Link: www.Click2Apply.net/b538823

Fisheries€¦ · Fisheries • Vol 37 No 7• July 2012 • 291 This is the third and final...

Documents

Transcript of Fisheries€¦ · Fisheries • Vol 37 No 7• July 2012 • 291 This is the third and final...