fisheries - moya k · without any nuance of grey. jennifer l. nielsen 611 director’s line the web...

The Center for Independent Experts

Impending Trade Suspensions of Caribbean Queen Conch

Open Water Aquaculture Essay

Fisheries Fish NewsLegislative UpdateJournal HighlightsCalendar Job Center

American Fisheries Society • www.fisheries.org

DECEMBER 2006VOL 31 NO 12

FEATURES

590 FISHERIES ADMINISTRATION

The Center for Independent Experts:The National External PeerReview Program of NOAA’sNational Marine Fisheries ServiceThe Center for Independent Experts providestimely peer reviews of NOAA Fisheries' scienceproducts. The center's structure and operations,and impacts to NOAA's science, are described.

Stephen K. Brown, Manoj Shivlani, David Die,David B. Sampson, and Tina A. Ting

601FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

Impending Trade Suspensions of Caribbean Queen Conch underCITES: A Case Study on Fishery Impacts and Potential for Stock RecoveryStrong, adaptive management actions areimmediately needed to protect the remainingCaribbean queen conch stocks. If notimplemented soon, CITES intervention resultingin an export moratorium may be warranted.

Charles A. AcostaESSAY607FISH CULTURE

Toward Sustainable Open OceanAquaculture in the United StatesThe current status of open ocean aquaculture inthe Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States,interest in open ocean aquaculture activities, theregulatory environment, and the potential forsustainable development are examined.

Robert R. Stickney, Barry Costa-Pierce, Donald M.Baltz, Mark Drawbridge, Churchill Grimes,Stephen Phillips, and D. LaDon Swann

COLUMNS584 PRESIDENT’S HOOK

The Nuances of Grey and Open Access Publishing at AFSThe move to electronic open access journals atAFS will increase our information transfer andaddress critical time-to-publication needs inthe field of fisheries science and managementwithout any nuance of grey.

Jennifer L. Nielsen

611 DIRECTOR’S LINE

The Web We WeaveThe revamped AFS website continues toincorporate member-suggested improvementsand its members-only section offers exclusivefeatures to AFS members.Gus Rassam

DEPARTMENTS

586 FISHERIES NEWS

587 UPDATE:LEGISLATION AND POLICY

588 FISHERIES CURRENTS:SCIENCE NEWS FROM AFS

589 JOURNAL HIGHLIGHTS:NAJFM

612 2006 ANNUAL MEETING: AWARDS

618 CALENDAR: 2006-2007 FISHERIES EVENTS

620 FISHERIES ANNUAL INDEX

624 UPDATE:HUTTON ANNUAL REPORT

626 FINAL CALL FOR PAPERS:2007 ANNUAL MEETING

628 JOB CENTER

630 ADVERTISING INDEX

COVER: Harvest of queen conch (Strombusgigas).is prohibited in the Florida Keys.CREDIT: Heather Dine, NOAA photo library

AFS OFFICERS PRESIDENT Jennifer L. NielsenPRESIDENT ELECT Mary C. FabrizioFIRST VICE PRESIDENT William G. FranzinSECOND VICE PRESIDENT Donald C. JacksonPAST PRESIDENT Christopher C. KohlerEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Ghassan “Gus” N. Rassam

FISHERIES STAFFSENIOR EDITORGhassan “Gus” N. RassamDIRECTOR OF PUBLICATIONSAaron LernerMANAGING EDITORBeth BeardPRODUCTION EDITOR Cherie Worth

SCIENCE EDITORS Madeleine Hall-ArberDoug BeardKen CurrensWilliam E. KelsoDeirdre M. KimballRobert T. LackeyDennis LassuyAllen RutherfordRuss Short

BOOK REVIEW EDITORSFrancis JuanesBen LetcherKeith Nislow

Amer i can F i she r i e s Soc ie ty • www.f i she r ie s .o rg

ED I TOR IAL / SUBSCR I PT ION / C I RCULAT ION OFF ICES5410 GROSVENOR LANE, SUITE 110 • BETHESDA, MD 20814-2199301/897-8616 • FAX 301/897-8096 • [email protected]

THE AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY (AFS), founded in 1870, is theoldest and largest professional society representing fisheriesscientists. The AFS promotes scientific research and enlightenedmanagement of aquatic resources for optimum use and enjoymentby the public. It also encourages comprehensive education offisheries scientists and continuing on-the-job training.

Fisheries Dues and fees for 2006 are $76 in North America ($88 elsewhere) forregular members; $38 in North America ($44 elsewhere) for studentand retired members. Fees include $19 for Fisheries subscription.Nonmember and library subscription rates are $112 ($134). Price percopy: $3.50 member; $6 nonmember. Fisheries (ISSN 0363-2415) ispublished monthly by the American Fisheries Society; 5410 GrosvenorLane, Suite 110; Bethesda, MD 20814-2199 ©copyright 2006. Periodicalspostage paid at Bethesda, Maryland, and at an additional mailingoffice. A copy of Fisheries Guide for Authors is available from theeditor or the AFS website, www.fisheries.org. If requesting from themanaging editor, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed envelopewith your request. Republication or systematic or multiple reproductionof material in this publication is permitted only under consent orlicense from the American Fisheries Society. Postmaster: Send addresschanges to Fisheries, American Fisheries Society; 5410 Grosvenor Lane,Suite 110; Bethesda, MD 20814-2199.

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

DECEMBER 2006VOL 31 NO 12

590

601

626

584 Fisheries • VOL 31 NO 12 • DECEMBER 2006 • WWW.FISHERIES.ORG

In today’s world, what is grey literature?Fisheries scientists and managers do notalways communicate through the strict rulesof peer-reviewed journal articles or books.Many scientists who are members of AFSwork for agencies, organizations, or compa-nies with traditional and acceptedcommunication paths that are not submittedfor formal publication in the research litera-ture. These documents include research ortechnical reports, database depositories,granting documentation, teaching material,guidelines and protocols, information andoutreach products, or translations of printedmaterial. All of these products hold signifi-cant practical value, but are lumped into thegeneral category of non-conventional or“grey” literature.

The term grey literature brings to mindissues of questionable authority, weak sci-ence, apathy, indifference, and unregulatedpublication. But this is frequently not thecase. Significant information value is pre-served in documents and data held inrepositories without formal outside review.They support very relevant, specific purposesthat are not appropriate or sufficient for for-mal peer review in scientific publications orspecialized journals (Mason 2006). Untilrecently, discussions on the value of grey liter-ature were basically internal to theorganizations generating these products.However, libraries have been digitizing andassembling collections of rare technicalreports not found in the commercial scientificliterature for quite a while (Kreitz et al. 1997).Various attempts have been made to providesourcing for grey literature, such as the BritishLibrary Document Supply Centre, the RussianUnion Catalogue of Grey Literature, theCanadian Institute for Scientific and TechnicalInformation, and the Monthly Catalog of U.S.Government Publications. With the transfor-mation by Internet search engines anduniversal document retrieval opportunities,the access to unique and rich sources of greyliterature has become more open.

The international role of the Internetmeans that grey literature is widely dissemi-nated and used. Universally, students searchthe web for information and specific contentmore frequently than they visit books orlibraries (Lesk 1999). Since 1994, the GreyLiterature Network System has helped stu-

dents, librarians, publishers, and researchersin the writing and cataloging of grey litera-ture (see GreyNet.org and the InternationalJournal on Grey Literature). While organiza-tions issuing and disseminating grey literatureare responsible for the documents produced,the nuances of grey are quickly losing theirnegative connotations and, thanks to theInternet, are now widely cited. The impor-tance of grey literature has been increasingand is widely viewed as a relevant source ofinformation produced for meaningful, practi-cal purposes (De Castro and Salinetti 2004).

So what has been the role of grey litera-ture in science? Auger (1989) argued thevalue of grey material to the sciences to bequick access, greater flexibility, raw data stor-age, and the opportunity to go intoconsiderable detail not available in standardpublications. In another study, Gelfand (1998)found grey literature on science policy, scien-tific protocols, and web sites coveringscientific journalism to be extremely valuableto communications among scientists. Theincorporation of video and sound at many ofthese sites enhances opportunities to interactin an open exchange of ideas not commonlyfound in the published literature. Grey litera-ture also provides citizens with informationneeded to make decisions about their ownlives and the societies where they live, linkingseemingly esoteric science more comfortablyto the public. In a world of instantaneouscommunications, grey literature is gaining sig-nificant importance as a source for publicinformation due to the freedom of contentand access on the web. But the quality andcontent of grey information is highly variableand still considered somewhat subjective.

In traditional scientific literature, quality ofcontent and editorial presentation meet wellrecognized uniform requirements. This hasnot been universally true for grey literature.But that is rapidly changing with new inter-national guidelines proposed for greyliterature production and dissemination(GLISC 2006). As AFS moves into electronicpublishing with open access through ournew marine and coastal journal, we are div-ing head first into a sea of publicationsawash with grey material. When we commu-nicate through this information-rich medium,we need to draw the line clearly betweengrey literature and peer-reviewed products

that come from AFS. Implementing easieraccess, broader dissemination, and rapid elec-tronic communication of science withoutdirect paper copy does not mean AFS willslacken editorial scope, reduce review criteria,or loose prestige. I think quite the contrary.There is a new creativity in electronic publish-ing where AFS can provide leadership andvision and set a standard for the rest of theresource science community. The history ofbest science at AFS will maximize the value ofour open access publications based on a longtrack record of professional integrity while stillproviding new tools that better link our scien-tists and their work to the public. The moveto electronic open access journals at AFS willincrease our information transfer and addresscritical time-to-publication needs in the fieldof fisheries science and management withoutany nuance of grey.

LITERATURE CITEDAuger, C. 1989. Information sources in grey

literature. 2nd Edition. Bowker-Saur, London.De Castro, P., and S. Salinetti. 2004. Quality of

grey literature in the open access era: privilegeand responsibility. Publishing Research Quarterly20(1):4-12.

Gelfand, J. 1998. Teaching and exposing greyliterature: what the information professionneeds to know—examples from science. Pages242-250 in Third International Conference onGrey Literature: GL ’97 Conference Proceedings:perspectives on the design and transfer ofscience and technical information, November13-14, 1997. TransAtlantic, Amsterdam.

GLISC (Grey Literature International SteeringCommittee). 2006. Guidelines for theproduction of scientific and technical reports:how to write and distribute grey literature.GLISC, Rome, Italy. Available at www.glisc.info.(Accessed 20 October 2006).

Kreitz, P. A., L. Addis, H. Galic, and T. Johnson.1997. The virtual library in action: collaborativeinternational consortium of high-energyphysics pre-prints. Transformation PeriodicalsConsortium 13(2):24-32.

Lesk, M. 1999. Digital libraries: a unifying ordisturbing force? Scholarly Communications andTechnology Symposium, Andrew W. MelonFoundation, Atlanta, Georgia (April 24, 1997).Available at www.lesk.com. (Accessed 24October 2006).

Mason, M. K. 2006. Grey literature: its history,definition, acquisition, and cataloguing. MKMResearch. Available at www.moyak.com.(Accessed 24 October 2006).

The Nuances of Grey and Open Access Publishing at AFS

COLUMN:PRESIDENT’S HOOK

Jennifer L. NielsenAFS President Nielsen

can be contacted [email protected].

Fisheries • VOL 31 NO 12 • DECEMBER 2006 • WWW.FISHERIES.ORG 585


Wild Trout IXThe Wild Trout IX Program Committee

is soliciting abstracts for presentationsand posters. Wild Trout IX, to be held9–12 October 2007 at the WestYellowstone Holiday Inn, will offer aunique forum for professionals and troutanglers to interact, to get to know eachother in an informal setting, and to beexposed to the latest wild trout science,technology, and philosophy. Papers willfocus on the needs of working-level wildtrout professionals, conservationists, andtrout anglers. Please send brief abstracts(200-300 words or less) to committee co-chairs ([email protected] ) by 1April 2007.

The program committee is interestedin papers related to the following topics:balancing native trout with introducedtrout, habitat enhancement and restora-tion, catch-and-release fisheries, geneticconsiderations for managing wild trout,

and invasive species (vertebrates, inver-tebrates, and plants). For moreinformation about Wild Trout IX, visit www.wildtroutsymposium.com.

—Spencer Turner

Women Evolving Biological SciencesWomen Evolving Biological Sciences

(WEBS) is an annual three-day symposiumaimed at addressing the retention of femalescientists and issues related to the transitionof women from early career stages totenure track positions and leadership roles inacademic and research settings. The goal is

to increase signifi-cantly the retentionand promotion ofwomen in academiain biological sci-ences, in order tocreate greater diver-sity in academic andscientific leadership.WEBS thus targetsearly career womenin the biological sci-ences with anemphasis on ecol-ogy andevolutionary biol-ogy. In particular,WEBS focuses onwomen who haveearned their doc-toral degrees withinthe past 2–8 yearsand who do nothave tenure, inorder to address thecritical transitionperiod from gradu-ate studies andpost-doctoral posi-tions to permanent

research and teaching positions. WEBS par-ticipants are current post-docs, researchscientists, and assistant professors.

The symposia will provide a forum forprofessional development, including aware-ness and improvement of academicleadership skills, opportunities to establishmentoring relationships, and resources fordeveloping professional networks. Eachsymposium will include speakers and smallgroup activities, as well as opportunities forthe participants to interact in casual,unstructured settings. Speakers will be mid-career and senior female scientists who willshare their own stories and lead discussionsand activities on topics such as life/work bal-ance, time management, running a researchlab, managing a budget, networking andmentoring, course development, and careerpathways to leadership. The first WEBS sym-posium is scheduled for 14–17 October2007 outside of Seattle, Washington; seewww.webs.washington.edu.

—Claire Horner-Devine

AIFRB 50th Anniversary SymposiumThe American Institute of Fishery

Research Biologists (AIFRB) is celebratingits 50th anniversary by convening aninternational symposium on "The Futureof Fishery Science in North America." Thesymposium will be 13–15 February 2007in Seattle, Washington. The researchopportunities and challenges of fisheryscience for the next decade will be con-sidered in the context of the science insupport of fishery-management decision-making, policy, and technology. Outcomesfrom the symposium will influence emer-gent issues and critical scientific questionsrelevant to fisheries worldwide. The sym-posium is a unique occasion to assembleleaders active in conservation, manage-ment, and sustainability to presentinsights and new approaches to currentand future scientists who will be workingto achieve and maintain the sustainabilityof global fisheries resources in an increas-ingly complex environment. Bill Hogarth,assistant administrator of NOAA Fisheries,is scheduled as one of two keynotespeakers. See www.aifrb.org for moreinformation.

—Bill Zahner

FISHERIES NEWS


New leadership for science and environment committees

The takeover by Democrats of bothchambers of the U.S. Congress may be sig-nificant for the future of fisheries. Amongthe important changes in Congressionalleadership is the ascendancy of Rep. NancyPelosi (D-CA) to Speaker of the House fol-lowing the 2006 lame duck session. Pelosihas long been considered a strong ally ofenvironmentalists and aquatic concerns.Among her actions to help fisheries, Pelosidrafted language and secured funding thatrevived once-endangered Sacramento Riverwinter-run Chinook salmon. Additionally,Pelosi supported efforts to deliver disasterassistance to West Coast salmon fishermenand funds to rebuild Klamath fish stocks,and fought for protection of anadromouswatersheds and coastal fish habitats.

Among the notable changes to commit-tee leadership in the Senate is the head ofthe Environment and Public WorksCommittee. Losing the top spot on thecommittee is James Inhofe (OK-R), who willlikely be replaced by Barbara Boxer (D-CA).Inhofe may also lose his place as the rankingminority member on the committee.

New committee assignments are stillbeing set, but some forecasts are beingmade. Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN) will likelychair the House Science Committee.Indications are that Gordon would like tomaintain the committee’s traditions of bipar-tisanship. Additionally, Gordon is expectedto show interest in funding for scientific pro-grams, continuing to boost U.S.competitiveness in the global research mar-ket, improving science education programs,and reducing the politicization of science.Taking the reins of the House Energy andCommerce Committee will be a formerchairman, Rep. John Dingell (D-MI). Dingellhas previously sided with Republicans on cli-mate change issues, but has announcedplans to hold hearings on climate changepolicy.

The change to the leadership of theHouse Resources Committee may havebeen one of the biggest gains for environ-mentalists and scientists concerned withresource extraction and endangered specieslegislation. Chair Richard Pombo (R-CA) wasdefeated by John McNerney (D-CA), an

engineer with experience in alternativeenergy technologies. Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV) will likely take over the chairmanship ofthe Resources Committee. He has not set anagenda, but some in the environmentalcommunity think that he will not pursuePombo’s agenda to weaken the EndangeredSpecies Act or promote drilling in the ArcticNational Wildlife Refuge. Rep. HenryWaxman (D-CA) is expected to head theHouse Government Reform Committee,charged with oversight of the federal gov-ernment. Waxman may include among hispriorities a review of the BushAdministration’s science record, the per-ceived politicization of science, and theimpact of funding reductions at agenciessuch as the Environmental ProtectionAgency. Rep. David Obey (D-WI) is expectedto chair the House AppropriationsCommittee.

House and Senate divided on NOAA budget

The House and Senate remain $1 billionapart on the budget for the NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA) for fiscal year 2007. NOAA hasbeen operating under the House appropria-tions bill, which cuts the agency's budget byover $500 million to $3.4 billion in FY 2007,since the new fiscal year began on 1October. In contrast, the SenateAppropriations Committee approved a bill inJuly that would increase NOAA's budget bynearly $500 million to $4.4 billion. However,the full Senate failed to complete action onthe bill before it adjourned for the elections.The fate of NOAA's budget may be deter-mined by a House-Senate conferencecommittee that is charged with reconcilingthe differences between the two bills. If theHouse and Senate were to split the differ-ence between the two bills, then NOAA'sFY 2007 budget would be nearly the sameas its FY 2006 budget.

The House and Senate bills both protectthe budget of the National Weather Service.The House bill would cut funding for otherNOAA programs, including research pro-grams, in order to achieve $500 million inbudget cuts. In contrast, the Senate billwould provide substantial increases forNOAA research programs.

• Office ofOceanic andAtmosphericResearch(OAR): TheSenate bill would increase OAR fundingby 26% to $467 million in FY 2007. Incontrast, the House bill would cut OARfunding by 11% to $328 million. TheSenate mark for OAR is 42% or $139million above the House mark.

• Ocean and Coastal Research: WithinOAR, the Senate bill would increasefunding for Ocean and Coastal Researchby 43% to $181 million. The House billwould cut funding by 27% to $93 mil-lion. The Senate mark is 96% or $88million above the House mark.

• Sea Grant College Program: The Housebill would cut funding for the Sea GrantCollege Program by 5% to $52 million inFY 2007. The Senate bill would increasefunding for the Sea Grant Program by53% to $84 million. The Senate markfor the Sea Grant Program is 61% or$32 million above the House mark.

• National Ocean Service (NOS): TheSenate bill would increase NOS fundingby 28% to $631 million in FY 2007. TheHouse bill would cut NOS funding by36% to $315 million. The Senate mark is100% or $315 million above the Housemark.

• National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS):The Senate bill would increase NMFSfunding by 22% to $814 million. TheHouse bill would cut NMFS funding by19% to $539 million. The Senate mark is51% or is $275 million higher than theHouse mark.

Large reductions in funding for NOAAare inconsistent with the recommendationsof the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policyand the Pew Oceans Commission. Thechairs of these commissions, Adm. James D.Watkins and Leon E. Panetta, issued a jointletter expressing their concern that the pro-posed funding cuts would be imposed at atime when there is clear recognition of thegrowing number and severity of problemsthat are compromising the health and asso-ciated economic benefits generated by thenation’s oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes.

UPDATE:LEGISLATION AND POLICY

Jessica GeubtnerAFS Policy coordinatorGeubtner can be [email protected].


Australian common carp trap shows promiseThe common carp is perhaps the world’s most invasive fish

species, found on every continent except Antarctica. Common carpcompete with native fish and often come to dominate freshwaterfish communities. In a recent article in the North American Journal ofFisheries Management, a group of Australian researchers introducesa new trap that exploits an unusual attribute of the species—its ten-dency to jump out of the water to escape. The “Williams cage” canbe installed in fishways in weirs or other constricted stream areas tocapture common carp as they migrate upstream during warmermonths. The cage includes two compartments, divided by jumpingbaffle. The jumping common carp are captured in the upper com-partment, while non-jumping native Australian fish are periodicallycrowded into a lower compartment and automatically released.Results indicate that the trap successfully captured 88% of the com-mon carp that came through a weir fishway, while allowing thepassage of 99.9% of native fish. The authors speculate that the trapcould be used to capture other jumping carp species or even used inreverse to separate non-jumping invasive sea lampreys from jumpingtrout and salmon species in the Great Lakes area. Managing aMigratory Pest Species: A Selective Trap for Common Carp, byIvor G. Stuart, Alan Williams, John McKenzie, and Terry Holt. NorthAmerican Journal of Fisheries Management 26:888-893. Stuart canbe contacted at [email protected].

A new tool to predict longline bycatch survivalOne of the greatest challenges in managing longline fisheries is

the uncertainty about the survival rate of animals caught as bycatchand then released. In a recent article in Transactions of the AmericanFisheries Society, a group of researchers used a combination of bloodanalyses and high-tech pop-up satellite archival tags (PSAT) to deter-mine if it was possible to predict survival for blue sharks caught onlonglines near the Hawaiian Islands. Blood samples were taken foreach shark brought on board (both dying and healthy), and thosethought likely to survive were released with PSATs that recordeddepth and temperature for a period of months before popping off torise to the surface to transmit their data to a satellite. The researchersfocused on two blood variables that differed between dying and sur-viving sharks. Models based on those blood variables indicate that95% of the blue sharks released in good condition would be

expected to survive, which was confirmed by the PSAT data. Overall,90-95% of blue sharks survive being caught on longlines andreleased. Further research is needed to see if this method can beapplied to other sharks, billfish, and sea turtles. PredictingPostrelease Survival in Large Pelagic Fish, by Christopher D.Moyes, Nuno Fragoso, Michael K. Musyl, and Richard W. Brill.Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 135:1389-1397.Moyes can be contacted at [email protected].

Site selection crucial to freshwater artificial reef successAlthough artificial reefs have been extensively used in marine set-

tings, little research has been conducted on the effectiveness ofartificial reefs in large freshwater bodies like the Great Lakes.Researchers from the Illinois Natural History Survey studied an artifi-cial reef designed to attract smallmouth bass in southwestern LakeMichigan near Chicago. Researchers counted fish using SCUBA diversurveys and estimated catch rates using gill nets at the artificial reefand a similar non-reef reference site. The researchers also surveyedrecreational anglers about their awareness and use of the reef.Reporting in the North American Journal of Fisheries Management,the researchers found catch rates of all fish species did not differbetween the reef and the reference site, although divers generallysaw more fish at the reef. Water temperature affected the appear-ance of most fish more than the artificial structure. The reef didattract more smallmouth bass and rock bass compared to the refer-ence site, but not until the water warmed up each summer. It alsocreated prime habitat for invasive round gobies. Unfortunately, theartificial reef was too far from local boat ramps to generate muchangler use. The researchers suggest positioning freshwater artificialreefs in areas where the water warms more quickly and which aremore easily accessible to anglers. If You Build It, Will They Come?Fish and Angler Use at a Freshwater Artificial Reef, by Sara M.Creque, Matthew J. Raffenberg, Wayne A. Brofka, and John A.Dettmers. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 26:702-713. Creque can be contacted at [email protected].

Constructed habitats providing good coho productionThe loss of off-channel or floodplain habitats is thought to be one

of the major factors that limit coho salmon production in the PacificNorthwest. Sloughs, side channels, and off-channel ponds provideboth spawning and rearing areas for coho smolts, as well as refugefrom high river flows. Millions of dollars have been spent on flood-plain restoration, either in reconnecting existing natural habitats orcreating entirely new side channels and ponds. But how well arethese constructed habitats working? In a recent article inTransactions of the American Fisheries Society, scientists studied yearsof coho smolt trapping data from 30 constructed, restored, and nat-ural floodplain habitat sites. They found the constructed habitatsprovided the same level of smolt production as natural habitats. Themost important factor was the size of the wetted area, with smallerhabitats similar to beaver ponds providing the most smolts. Moreshoreline irregularity and cover also seemed to increase the length ofthe smolts. Coho Salmon Smolt Production from Constructedand Natural Floodplain Habitats, by Phil Roni, Sarah A. Morley,Patsy Garcia, Chris Detrick, Dave King, and Eric Beamer. Transactionsof the American Fisheries Society 135:1398-1408. Roni can be con-tacted at [email protected].

FISHERIES CURRENTS:SCIENCE NEWS FROM AFS

[Management Brief] Spatial Allocation ofShrimp Catch Based on Fishing Effort:Adjusting for the Effects of the TexasOpening. John G. Cole, Benny J. Gallaway,Larry R. Martin, James M. Nance, and MichaelLongnecker, pages 789-792.

Point Sampling by Boat Electrofishing: ATest of the Effort Required to Assess FishCommunities. Nicolas W. R. Lapointe, Lynda D.Corkum, and Nicholas E. Mandrak, pages 793-799.

Angler Opinion of Potential BluegillRegulations on Illinois Lakes: Effects ofAngler Demographics and BluegillPopulation Size Structure. Timothy W. Edison,David H. Wahl, Matthew J. Diana, David P.Philipp, and Douglas J. Austen, pages 800-811.

Effects of Live-Well Conditions on Mortalityand Largemouth Bass Virus Prevalence inLargemouth Bass Caught during SummerTournaments. Harold L. Schramm, Jr., Aaron R.Walters, John M. Grizzle, Benjamin H. Beck,Larry A. Hanson, and Steven B. Rees, pages 812-825.

Survival of Largemouth Bass fromPopulations Infected with Largemouth BassVirus and Subjected to SimulatedTournament Conditions. Harold L. Schramm,Jr. and Jonathan G. Davis, pages 826-832.

Effects of Explosives on Incubating LakeTrout Eggs in the Canadian Arctic. Sean G.Faulkner, William M. Tonn, Marek Welz, andDouglas R. Schmitt, pages 833-842.

Catch-and-Release Mortality of SpottedSeatrout in Texas. Gregory W. Stunz and DavidA. McKee, pages 843-848.

Evaluation of an Unsuccessful Brook TroutElectrofishing Removal Project in a SmallRocky Mountain Stream. Kevin A. Meyer,James A. Lamansky, Jr., and Daniel J. Schill,pages 849-860.

[Management Brief] Effectiveness of a PlasticMesh Substrate Cover for Reducing theEffects of Common Carp on AquaticEcosystems. Joseph J. Parkos, III, Victor J.Santucci, Jr., and David H. Wahl, pages 861-866.

Comparison of Native and IntroducedFlathead Catfish Populations in Alabamaand Georgia: Growth, Mortality, andManagement. Peter C. Sakaris, Elise R. Irwin,Jeffrey C. Jolley, and Donald Harrison, pages867-874.

Fish Entrainment into Irrigation Canals: anAnalytical Approach and Application to theBow River, Alberta, Canada. John R. Post,Brett T. van Poorten, Trevor Rhodes, Paul Askey,and Andrew Paul, pages 875-887.

Managing a Migratory Pest Species: ASelective Trap for Common Carp. Ivor G.Stuart, Alan Williams, John McKenzie, and TerryHolt, pages 888-893.

Predicted Changes in Subyearling FallChinook Salmon Rearing and MigratoryHabitat under Two Drawdown Scenariosfor John Day Reservoir, Columbia River.Kenneth F. Tiffan, Rodney D. Garland, andDennis W. Rondorf, pages 894-907.

[Management Brief] Catchability of Larval andJuvenile Northern Pike in Quatrefoil LightTraps. Rodney B. Pierce, Steve Shroyer, BrucePittman, Dale E. Logsdon, and Todd D. Kolander,pages 908-915.

Mitochondrial DNA Variation in theEndangered Colorado Pikeminnow: AComparison among Hatchery Stocks andHistoric Specimens. Kimberly Borley andMatthew M. White, pages 916-920.

[Management Brief] Nonlethal Sampling ofSunfish and Slimy Sculpin for Stable IsotopeAnalysis: How Scale and Fin Tissue Comparewith Muscle Tissue. Maureen H. Kelly, WilliamG. Hagar, Timothy D. Jardine, and Richard A.Cunjak, pages 921-925.

[Management Brief] Allometric Relationshipsbetween Size of Calcified Structures andRound Goby Total Length. J. P. Dietrich, A. C.Taraborelli, B. J. Morrison, and T. Schaner, pages926-931.

Historical Changes in Abundance ofFloating-Leaf and Emergent Vegetation inMinnesota Lakes. Paul Radomski, pages 932-940.

[Management Brief] Evaluation of theRecovery Period in Mark–RecapturePopulation Estimates of Rainbow Trout inSmall Streams. Gabriel M. Temple and Todd N.Pearsons, pages 941-948.

[Management Brief] Effectiveness ofAtimycin-A as a Toxicant for Control ofInvasive Asian Swamp Eels. Thomas R.Reinert, Carrie A. Straight, and Byron J.Freeman, pages 949-952.

[Management Brief] Effect of Pelvic FinRay Removal on Survival andGrowth of Bull Trout. Nikolas D.Zymonas and Thomas E. McMahon,pages 953-959.

A Logistic Regression Model forPredicting the Upstream Extent of FishOccurrence Based on GeographicalInformation Systems Data. Brian R.Fransen, Steven D. Duke, L. Guy McWethy,Jason K. Walter, and Robert E. Bilby, pages 960-975.

[Management Brief] Emigration of Fish fromTwo South Carolina Cooling Reservoirs. M.H. Paller, D. E. Fletcher, M. M. Standora, T. B.Grabowski, T. A. Jones, S. A. Dyer, and J. J. Isely,pages 976-982.

Effects of Wildfire and SubsequentHydrologic Events on Fish Distribution andAbundance in Tributaries of North ForkJohn Day River. Philip J. Howell, pages 983-994.

Evaluation of Removal Sampling forBasinwide Assessment of Atlantic Salmon.John A. Sweka, Christopher M. Legault,Kenneth F. Beland, Joan Trial, and Michael J.Millard, pages 995-1002.

Evaluation of Techniques for the Marking ofMummichogs with Emphasis on VisibleImplant Elastomer. Marc A. Skinner, Simon C.Courtenay, W. Roy Parker, and R. Allen Curry,pages 1003-1010.

[Management Brief] Random versus Fixed-Site Sampling When Monitoring RelativeAbundance of Fishes in Headwater Streamsof the Upper Colorado River Basin. MichaelC. Quist, Kenneth G. Gerow, Michael R. Bower,and Wayne A. Hubert, pages 1011-1019.

Linking Angling Catch Rates and FishLearning under Catch-and-ReleaseRegulations. Paul J. Askey, Shane A. Richards,John R. Post, and Eric A. Parkinson, pages 1020-1029.

Posttournament Survival and Dispersal ofAdult Striped Bass. Shawn P. Young and J.Jeffery Isely, pages 1030-1033.

JOURNAL HIGHLIGHTS:NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF FISHERIES MANAGEMENT


Volume 26Number 4

November 2006

To subscribe to AFS journals, go to www.fisheries.org and click on Publications/Journals.

End-of-Year

BOOK SALEAFS is offering a number of publications

at reduced prices. From now until January 15, 2007,

take advantage of our End-of-Year Book Sale and save on selected AFS publications.

Complete your science library at dramatically reduced prices—

all sale publications are $15.00 or less! NO REFUNDS OR RETURNS ON THIS SPECIAL OFFER.

Please click on www.afsbooks.org/ to order sale books.


INTRODUCTION

Peer review is a vital element of the sci-entific process, playing a central role indetermining research priorities, funding, andpublication. It has been defined as “an orga-nized method for evaluating scientific workwhich is used by scientists to certify the cor-

rectness of procedures, establish the plausi-bility of results, and allocate scarceresources…” (Chubin and Hackett 1990:2),and “a form of deliberation involving anexchange of judgments about the appropri-ateness of methods and the strength of theauthor’s inferences” (OMB 2004:2). The

Stephen K. BrownManoj ShivlaniDavid DieDavid B. SampsonTina A. Ting

Brown is chief of the Assessment andMonitoring Division, Office of Science andTechnology, NOAA’s National MarineFisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland.He can be contacted [email protected]. Shivlani issenior research associate and Die isresearch associate professor at the Divisionof Marine Biology and Fisheries, RosenstielSchool of Marine and AtmosphericScience, University of Miami, Florida.Sampson is with the Coastal OregonMarine Experiment Station andDepartment of Fisheries and Wildlife,Oregon State University, Hatfield MarineScience Center, Newport. Ting is agraduate student at the Division of MarineAffairs and Policy, Rosenstiel School ofMarine and Atmospheric Science,University of Miami, Florida.

ABSTRACT: Requirements are growing for peer review of the science used forgovernmental management decisions. This is particularly true for fisheries science,where management decisions are often controversial. The National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service instituted theCenter for Independent Experts (CIE) in 1998 as a national peer-review program.Operations of the CIE, run under a contract with the University of Miami, main-tain the independence of reviewers from the agency, and follow strict conflict ofinterest guidelines. Reviews by the CIE fulfill the requirements of the InformationQuality Act and the Office of Management and Budget’s Peer Review Bulletin. TheCIE completed 101 reviews between 1999 and September 2006. Ninety-eightreviewers have participated in CIE reviews, with 72% of them coming from over-seas. Case studies involving groundfish data and stock assessments, andmarine-mammal abundance, are described, including the scientific issues, CIE oper-ations, requirements for the reviews, conclusions of the reviewers, and the agency’sresponses. Impacts of the CIE on the agency’s science include improvements toregional stock assessment processes and to stock-assessment and field-survey meth-ods, and reductions in contentious challenges to the agency’s science.

FEATURE:FISHERIES ADMINISTRATION

The Center for Independent Experts:The National External Peer Review Program of

NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service

The trawl surveys conductedby NOAA Fisheries’Northeast Fisheries ScienceCenter provide key fisheries-independent data used forassessing the stocksmanaged under theNortheast MultispeciesFisheries Management Plan.


American Fisheries Society (AFS) recentlycommented on the value of independentpeer review for fisheries science, includingthe stimulation of new ideas, clarification ofideas, and increased rigor in analyses andconclusions (Rassam and Geubtner 2006).The AFS also identified peer review as acomponent of the best available science forfisheries (Sullivan et al. 2006).

Many management agencies base regula-tory decisions in part on the work of theirown scientists, or on research they receiveunder contract, which can lead to perceivedconflicts of interest and to challenges to thecredibility of their science and managementdecisions. In addition, some agencies havebeen publicly accused of “gagging” their sci-entists if their work involves controversialtopics (e.g., Revkin 2006). Subjectingagency science to independent peer reviewis an approach increasingly used to addressthese problems. For example, the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)has adopted a highly detailed process forincorporating peer review into regulatoryprocedures, including documentation of theresults of the review (USEPA 2000). Also, apolicy incorporating independent peerreviews into listing and recovery actionsunder the Endangered Species Act has beenin place since 1994 (USFWS and NMFS1994).

The National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration’s National Marine FisheriesService (NOAA Fisheries) has a long tradi-tion of involving outside experts in externalpeer reviews of the science underlying man-agement decision making and the programsthat generate this science. The scope andindependence of these reviews varies widely,ranging from informal reviews by colleagues(e.g., an internal report), to peer reviewsconducted by scientists from other NOAAFisheries science centers and academic insti-tutions (e.g., stock assessments used asscientific advice by fishery managementcouncils for setting quotas), to large, com-plex reviews of topics of nationalsignificance, often conducted by theNational Research Council. The outsideexperts providing these reviews typicallyhave been internationally-recognized aca-demics or leading governmental scientistsfrom the United States or other countries.Historically the participation of the review-ers has usually been gratis, with NOAAcovering only travel costs. However, due togreatly increasing demands for peer review,and the complexity of the reviews, this situ-ation is changing rapidly for NOAA

Fisheries, and for other regulatory agenciesas well.

This article provides an overview of theCenter for Independent Experts (CIE),NOAA Fisheries’ national program for con-ducting formal peer reviews of the agency’sscience products. The article covers the rolethe CIE fills in meeting the agency’s needsfor peer review, the structure of the program,its operations, and case studies that describethe impacts of CIE reviews on some scien-tific issues and assessment processes.

ESCALATING PEER-REVIEWREQUIREMENTS

To adapt to the growing emphasis on theuse of scientific information in fisheriesmanagement decisions, in recent years thefederal government, including NOAAFisheries, has repeatedly sought externaladvice on how to improve the agency’s sci-ence, including the role of peer review, andthen developed and implemented plans tofollow that advice (Table 1).

The role of peer review in fisheries man-agement at the national level was addressedby the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy(USCOP). Recommendation 19-4 in theUSCOP’s final report (2004) states thatNOAA Fisheries, the fishery managementcouncils, and interstate fisheries commis-sions “should develop a process ofindependent review of the scientific infor-mation relied on by Scientific and StatisticalCommittees.” Three procedures were recog-nized: a standard annual review to ensurethat data and models are correct; anenhanced review conducted on a 3-5 yearcycle, which would evaluate models andassessment procedures to assess the state ofthe art; and an expedited review for highlycontroversial results. The CIE was specifi-cally mentioned as the type of organizationthat could provide the enhanced and expe-dited reviews. The U.S. Administration’sresponse (CEQ 2004) explicitly supports theuse of peer-reviewed science in fisheriesmanagement.

The trend towards incorporating peerreview into regulatory processes has culmi-nated in the Information Quality Act(IQA) of 2000, Section 515 of the Treasuryand General Government AppropriationsAct for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-554), and the implementing policiesestablished by the Office of Managementand Budget in the Information QualityBulletin for Peer Review (PRB; OMB 2004).The PRB establishes minimum standards forfederal agencies when peer review is

required. Two categories of science are rec-ognized: (1) highly influential scientificassessments, which could have the potentialimpact > $500 million in any year, or arenovel, controversial, precedent-setting, orhave significant inter-agency interest; and(2) influential scientific information, whichis information an agency can reasonablydetermine will have a clear and substantialimpact on important public policies or pri-vate sector decisions. The PRB establishedrequirements for public disclosure of andaccess to peer review planning; selection ofreviewers, including expertise and balance,conflicts of interest, and independence; peerreview mechanism (e.g., panel versus letterreview); transparency; and management ofthe peer review process. Although theassessments conducted by NOAA Fisheriesmay only occasionally reach the level of ahighly influential scientific assessment,much of the science routinely conducted byNOAA Fisheries falls into the influentialscientific information category. NOAAFisheries increasingly relies on the CIE forconducting peer reviews that are consideredhighly influential scientific assessments orinfluential scientific information.

THE CENTER FORINDEPENDENT EXPERTS

The CIE provides independent andtimely reviews of the science upon whichmany of NOAA Fisheries’ managementdecisions are based. For fisheries manage-ment, the decisions are required under theMagnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservationand Management Act as amended in 1996.For protected species, the decisions arerequired under the Endangered Species Actof 1973 as amended or the Marine MammalProtection Act of 1972 as amended.Compared to reviews conducted by theNational Research Council (NRC), CIEreviews are more narrowly focused on spe-cific scientific issues, and are conducted overa shorter timeline, typically two to fourmonths. Consequently, CIE reviews are con-siderably less costly than NRC reviews.Initiated in 1998, the CIE is now run undera contract with the University of Miami’sCooperative Institute for Marine andAtmospheric Studies (CIMAS;www.rsmas.miami.edu/groups/cie/).

The structure and operation of the CIEhave been designed to ensure the quality,relevance, and independence of the reviews.Independence is maintained by eliminatingany role for NOAA in selecting or payingthe reviewers, or in approving the contents


of reviewers’ reports. Also, strict conflict-of-interest policies are followed. To ensurequality and timeliness, the University ofMiami pays CIE reviewers for their work,and requires them to sign contracts with

well-defined deliverables and schedules.Most reviews are initiated through requestsfrom the NOAA fisheries science centers,with specific requirements described in astatement of work. Some reviews are initi-

ated as part of a legal settlement, or at therequest of NOAA Fisheries, NOAA, or theDepartment of Commerce.

There is no requirement for the agencyto accept or act on the recommendationsprovided by CIE reviewers, nor is there acomprehensive mechanism that tracks theagency’s responses. In some highly sensitivecases (see Case 1 below), the agency doesformally respond to CIE reviews.

CIE Reviews and Products

The CIE conducts on-site and corre-spondence reviews. For on-site reviews, theCIE experts are sent to meetings, workshops,or other fora organized by NOAA Fisheries.They usually participate in a peer-reviewpanel, which may consist only of CIEreviewers, or a mixture of CIE and otherreviewers. In some cases, a CIE expert maychair a panel, with responsibilities for coor-dination and ensuring that the tasks of thepanel are completed. In correspondencereviews, the CIE experts conduct all review-related activities from their home location.

Table 1. Recent recommendations to NOAA Fisheries and agency responses relevant to peer review.

Reference Key statement on peer review

RecommendationsNRC 1998a:116 The committee recommends that NOAA Fisheries conduct (at reasonable intervals) in-depth, independent peer review

of its fishery management methods to include (1) the survey sampling methods used in the collection of fishery andfishery-independent data, (2) stock assessment procedures, and (3) management and risk-assessment strategies.

NRC 1998b:75 Ensure that a greater number of independent scientists from academia and elsewhere participate in the StockAssessment Review Process [with respect to the Northeast groundfish stock assessments]…

NRC 2000:156 NOAA Fisheries, in conjunction with the regional councils, should review all aspects of its data collection activities, on afixed, publicly-announced schedule including all types of fishery-dependent and fishery independent data. Such reviewsshould include both a scientific peer review and a stakeholder review.

NRC 2000:165 A greater degree of independence in the peer-review process is needed in order to maintain the integrity and scientificcredibility of the NOAA Fisheries assessments….every assessment should be externally reviewed on a regular basis, forexample, every three to five years.

NRC 2002:5 NOAA Fisheries should continue to use and seek advice and review from independent sources. In the past, NOAAFisheries has been criticized for the lack of independent review of its stock assessments….Hence, independent reviewshould be a fundamental component of developing stock assessments.

NRC 2004:7 NOAA Fisheries should establish an explicit and standardized peer review process for all documents that containscientific information used in the development of fishery management plans.

U.S. COP 2004:235 Recommendation 19-4. The National Marine Fisheries Service, working with the Regional Fishery Management Councilsand the interstate fisheries commissions, should develop a process for independent review of the scientific informationrelied on by Scientific and Statistical Committees.

Responses and planning documentsU.S. DOC 2001:25 The CIE provides a mechanism for accessing a worldwide pool of highly-qualified fisheries scientists, statisticians, and

other experts.U.S. DOC 2004a:44 Objective 1.5: Use stock assessment workshops, peer reviews, and other fora to ensure that our information and advice

are developed through an open and collaborative process.U.S. DOC 2004b:2 Scientific peer review depicted in conceptual model of stock assessment process for protected species.CEQ 2004:19 The Administration supports the use of peer-reviewed science in resource management decisions. …the President

directs NOAA to establish guidelines and procedures for the development and application of scientific advice forfisheries management decisions, in consultation with the Regional Fishery Management Councils, Interstate FisheryCommissions, stakeholders, and other agencies as appropriate.

The CIE panel that participated in the February 2003 workshop on Northeast groundfishassessments (see Case Study1).


The CIE generally requires that review-ers complete reports that describe the reviewactivities, present all relevant findings, anddraw conclusions and recommendations.Each reviewer usually provides a separate,independent report. Sometimes CIE review-ers also contribute to panel reports, thoughthese are not considered CIE products. In afew recent projects, one of the reviewers,typically a panel chair, has provided a sum-mary report, which consolidates the views ofeach individual report. This is not developedas a consensus document, since there hasbeen no process for reaching consensus. Onpoints where all panelists agree, this is noted.Where opinions diverge, each viewpoint issummarized. The individual reviewer reportsare appended to the summary report, ensur-ing that all detailed information is provided.

CIE STRUCTURE

The CIE operates in a dynamic environ-ment, in that it reviews, modifies, andaccelerates its operating procedures asrequired for the reviews needed by NOAAFisheries, while maintaining its core inde-pendence. The CIE structure consists of acoordination team and a steering commit-tee, which work together in developing andupdating CIE operating procedures, identify-ing and selecting reviewers, and reviewingbackground material, review reports, andother related documents. The coordinationteam consists of a primary and an externalcoordinator, a manager, and an intern, aswell as ancillary personnel that provide sup-port in contracts and accounting. Thesteering committee, comprising three seniorscientists, provides scientific oversight.

The CIE coordination team is responsi-ble for daily operations. The manager andintern identify and contact experts in vari-ous marine science fields to maintain areviewer database, work with the coordina-tors in developing reviewer candidate lists,interface with the steering committee inselecting reviewers, draft contracts andrelated legal material as part of contractingexperts to serve as CIE reviewers, and han-dle review logistics. The primary coordinatoroversees daily operations, serving as the offi-cial CIE contact with NOAA Fisheries,reviewers, and others; directing revieweridentification and selection; and workingwith the manager and intern on other oper-ational matters. The primary coordinatoralso acts as the main liaison with the steer-ing committee, providing them with reviewand process-related developments, and serv-ing as the point of contact between the

steering committee and NOAA Fisheries.The external coordinator acts on behalf ofthe primary coordinator on reviews, pro-cesses, and issues on which the primarycoordinator may be perceived to possess aconflict of interest. Currently, the CIE coor-dination team is set up such that the primarycoordinator, whose primary research interestis in the Atlantic, manages all West Coast-based reviews, and the external coordinator,whose primary research is in the Pacific,manages all East Coast-based reviews.

Comprising three senior scientists, theCIE steering committee is responsible forselecting reviewers, making final decisionsconcerning conflict of interest, and deter-mining all other CIE-related issues thatcould not be resolved by the coordinationteam. Steering committee members servethree-year terms, and are replaced on a stag-gered schedule, thereby ensuring continuity.The steering committee collectively pos-sesses expertise on fishery stock assessment,marine mammals and protected marinespecies, and ecology and ecosystem science.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

To ensure that the CIE maintains thehighest level of independence, the CIE andNOAA Fisheries developed a strict conflictof interest policy, which has been designedto be consistent with OMB (2004) require-ments. Prior to participating in any CIEreview, every expert is required to sign a con-flict of interest (COI) statement(www.rsmas.miami.edu/groups/cie/ciecoi.htm). This statement outlines the conditionsunder which an expert is considered to befree from any conflict that would precludeparticipation in a CIE review. Reviewers arerequired to sign this statement for everyreview in which they participate, and arerequired to provide the CIE with any mate-rials relevant to a potential conflict, such asa curriculum vitae and published articles andopinions. The CIE evaluates these materialsbefore offering a review to an expert.

NOAA Fisheries participates in the COIevaluation only to the extent that theagency can provide additional information,which may have been unavailable to theCIE, that could affect an expert’s eligibility.In such cases, NOAA Fisheries may requestthat the CIE revisit the eligibility of anexpert, but NOAA Fisheries does not have adecision-making role regarding the expert’sselection as a CIE reviewer. Additionally,NOAA Fisheries cannot request rejection ofan expert based on the expert’s view of theagency, and can only provide information

that is germane to the issues in the COIstatement.

Many of the COI requirements involvefinancial conflicts. An expert may not par-ticipate as a CIE reviewer if he/she hasreceived funds in the past three years or isseeking funds and/or employment fromsources with vested interests in resources forwhich NOAA Fisheries has stewardshipresponsibilities. These sources include indus-try or environmental groups,non-governmental organizations, founda-tions, and any entity involved in relevantlitigation. Additionally, an expert is consid-ered to have a conflict if they have receivedor are seeking sole-source or non-competi-tive funding from NOAA Fisheries orinterested state or local governments. Theserestrictions also apply to immediate familymembers of potential CIE reviewers.

The other COI requirements addressconflicts arising from a history of advocacyor perceptions. A potential reviewer with awell-formed position or history of advocacyfor a specific viewpoint relevant to the fish-ery, or a perceived conflict of interestrelevant to the specific issue or fishery beingreviewed, is considered ineligible. Thesetypes of conflicts may only be relevant to aspecific issue. In such cases an expert may beeligible for other reviews.

REVIEW PROCESS

To begin the annual cycle of CIEreviews, the NOAA Fisheries project man-ager compiles a list of proposed reviews priorto the beginning of the fiscal year. This listis updated as needs change during the fiscalyear. The list includes details on the topic,type of review, number of reviewers, exper-tise required, level of effort, location, andschedule. The list is used by NOAAFisheries for scheduling and prioritizingreviews, and by both the agency and theCIE for planning, coordination, and budgetmanagement. NOAA Fisheries has insti-tuted a prioritization process to ensuremaximum benefit from the expenditures forCIE peer reviews (Table 2). At the begin-ning of a fiscal year, the prioritization factorsare applied to the initial list of proposedreviews by the NOAA Fisheries projectmanager. These priorities are reviewed andapproved by the NOAA fisheries sciencecenter directors and the chief scientist, andare re-evaluated as circumstances evolveover the course of the fiscal year.

A typical CIE review requires two tofour months from initiation to delivery offinal review reports (Figure 1). This pro-


cess can be expedited if necessary. Areview is initiated by NOAA Fisheries byselecting a high-priority review from theannual list of proposed reviews. TheNOAA Fisheries project manager and theCIE develop a statement of work and costestimate, which are entered into a workorder, the legal document that formallyassigns a review to the CIE under the con-tract. The statement of work providesbackground information and specifiesrequirements for the number and expertiseof reviewers and the activities required ofthe reviewers, such as documents thatmust be read, meetings that must beattended, and the outline for any reportthat each reviewer must produce. It alsocovers budget and schedule.

Once the CIE receives a draft state-ment of work, the coordination teamsearches for potential candidates for thatreview, based on the expertise required. Toensure independence from NOAAFisheries, the agency has no role in thisprocess. The coordinator and managerconsider candidates from the pool ofexperts that the CIE retains for this pur-pose, and may also search online databasesand journals for additional candidates.Once suitable candidates have been iden-tified, the coordination team contactseach expert to determine interest andavailability and evaluates potential con-flicts of interest. The final list ofcandidates, along with curricula vitae, isplaced on the CIE’s restricted-access web-

site, from which the steering committeeselects the final reviewer(s).

Following approval of the reviewers,the CIE manager develops contracts andorganizes logistics. The contracts arebetween the University of Miami andeach reviewer. NOAA is not a party tothese contracts. Logistics include provid-ing reviewer contact information toNOAA Fisheries, and setting up travelarrangements. The agency must provideall background material to the CIE andthe reviewers well in advance of reviewactivities. All correspondence betweenreviewers and NOAA Fisheries is copiedto the CIE to ensure transparency.

In contrast to the anonymity of review-ers maintained in most academic peerreview processes, information on the iden-

Table 2. Factors considered by NOAA Fisheries in prioritizing proposed CIE reviews. These factors are considered in the order given.

1. High economic impact, controversy, or potential for establishing a precedent with wide-ranging implications.2. Benchmark assessments prompted by a new fishery or protected resource management action, or by a major change in a stock assessment

model or input data that will have a major impact on stock status determination.3. The scientific information to be reviewed provided new or innovative research results, or used new or innovative methods, with clear application

to fisheries or protected resource management.4. The scientific information or assessment has not undergone independent peer review within the past five years, and new data or methods may

be needed to improve the scientific basis for management.5. The scientific information to be reviewed has significant interagency interest.6. The assessment is an annual update of an existing assessment with the addition of a new year of data, but no change in the assessment model.7. The purpose of the review is to improve NOAA Fisheries’s scientific operations.

Figure 1. Steps of the CIE review process.

Step Responsible party Duration 1. Peer review requested NOAA Fisheries client (science center, regional office, or headquarters office) 2. Statement of work/work order developed NOAA Fisheries headquarters and CIE 1–3 months 3. Reviewers selected, brought under contracts CIE 4. Review activities completed Reviewers contracted to CIE 5. Reports submitted to CIE Reviewers contracted to CIE

2–3 weeks

6. Reports reviewed, approved, submitted to NOAA Fisheries CIE 7. Reports accepted, sent to NOAA Fisheries client NOAA Fisheries headquarters

2–3 weeks

As is typical of peer reviews, the scientists involved with the Northeast groundfish reviews focused intently on technical issues.


tities of CIE reviewers is not restricted.Most of the reviews that include work-shops attended by CIE reviewers are opento the public. In some cases, the names ofthe reviewers are posted on the Internet(e.g., the South East Data Assessment andReview [SEDAR] web site, maintained bythe South Atlantic Fisheries ManagementCouncil). Also, the names of CIE review-ers can be obtained from NOAA Fisheriesupon request. The time-course of CIEreviews is too short to routinely post thisinformation on the Peer Review Bulletinweb site, which is updated only every sixmonths.

The statement of work contains dead-lines for when the reviewers must submitdraft review reports to the CIE, and forwhen the CIE must provide the finalreview reports to NOAA Fisheries. Manyreviews involve panel meetings or work-shops. Some panels consist only of CIEreviewers, while others are a mixture ofCIE and other reviewers. In some of thesecases, the CIE also provides a panel chair.The chair does not provide a reviewreport, but rather provides independentleadership of the panel and facilitates itsfunctioning. The chair may also con-tribute to panel reports, which may or maynot be CIE products. Generally, reviewershave two weeks following any offsitemeeting to produce draft reports, and theCIE has another two weeks for internalreview and approval. In extraordinaryconditions, the CIE completes expeditedreviews, providing reports to NOAAFisheries in one week or less after receipt.When CIE reviewers are required to con-tribute to panel reports in addition toproducing their own review report, theymust do so in accordance with the panel’sschedule.

The CIE coordination team and steer-ing committee are both responsible forreviewing draft review reports. The steer-ing committee reviews them for accuracy,relevance, and quality, and assesseswhether they meet the requirements ofthe statement of work. The coordinationteam also comments on these issues, butfocuses mainly on formatting and editing.The CIE manager submits final reports toNOAA Fisheries, and the agency’s projectmanager makes a final determination as towhether the reports meet the statement ofwork requirements. At this point NOAAFisheries can require revisions to addressspecific shortcomings, such as missingitems identified in the statement of work,

but cannot request changes in content orconclusions.

Publication of Reviews

Completed review reports are the prop-erty of NOAA Fisheries. The reports areprovided to the entity within the agencythat originally requested the review. Theyare not considered privileged information,so the reports are generally available uponrequest. Some reports of high public inter-est are published on the Internet (see Case1 below).

CHALLENGES ENCOUNTEREDWITH CIE REVIEWS

Occasional difficulties have occurredduring or following CIE reviews. Duringreviews, problems can occur when therequirements in the statement of work arenot clear, when the process followed dur-ing a review workshop deviates from theprocess outlined in the statement of work,or when additional information is pro-vided that was not available when thestatement of work was written. In suchcases, reviewers might produce reportsthat do not meet their contractual require-ments, which may necessitate revisions tothe reports and cause delays in their deliv-ery. Care in designing and implementing areview process and in writing the state-ment of work with well-defined andappropriate products can minimize theseoccurrences.

Despite having well-crafted statementsof work and smoothly implementedreview workshops, some reviewers’ reportsmay not contain appropriate or usefulanalysis or recommendations. Contractsbetween the CIE and the reviewers pro-vide some measure of quality control, butthe purpose of CIE reviews is to obtain thefreely expressed opinions of the individualreviewers. The reviewer’s comments areaccepted as long as they have addressedthe specific elements identified in thestatement of work. Because of this, somereviews have contained comments thatare inappropriate or are not feasible toimplement. Reviews of this nature repre-sent a lost opportunity, and couldsometimes put the agency in the awkwardposition of ignoring the advice that it hadsought.

There are some topics that remain con-troversial, even after an independent peerreview. A few interested parties have chal-lenged the agency or the CIE itself overthe credibility of a review. These chal-

lenges have focused on review processes,rather than the scientific issues that werethe subjects of the reviews. A point ofcontention has been the perceived con-flict of interest on the part of a reviewer,such as whether or not a reviewer has ahistory of advocacy for a specific view-point.

PROFILE OF CIE REVIEWSAND REVIEWERS

The CIE completed 101 reviewsbetween 1999 and September 2006, aver-aging about 13 reviews per year. Thenumber of reviews per year has increasedover time, reaching 18 in 2005 (Figure 2).Most reviews have covered recurring fishstock assessment meetings and workshops,other fish stock assessments, essential fishhabitat, ecosystem health and function,and impacts of habitat alteration. Overtime there has been an increase in thenumber of reviews for recurring stockassessment processes: the StockAssessment Review Committee (SARC)for the Northeast; the South East DataAssessment and Review (SEDAR) for theSoutheast, Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean;and the Stock Assessment and Review(STAR) for the Pacific Coast. Theserecurring processes now all depend onreviewers from the CIE. A substantial por-tion of CIE reviews has involved protectedspecies of marine mammals, sea turtles,and anadromous fishes, covering topicssuch as population structure, abundanceestimates, and impacts of fishing and otheranthropogenic factors. The CIE has pro-vided experts in other fields as diverse asveterinary science, physiology, animalbehavior, genetics, biochemistry, toxicol-ogy, geomorphology, oceanography,economics, and hydrology.

NOAA Fisheries pays the CIE for thereviews. The costs include payments madeby the University of Miami to the review-ers and the university’s costs for therunning the program. For the 2006 sched-ule, costs per review ranged from $18,600for a desk review, involving three review-ers working for a total of 15 days with notravel, to $98,500 for a review panelinvolving international travel and fourreviewers working for a total of 61 days.

Over the 1999-September 2006 period,the CIE contracted a total of 98 reviewers.CIE experts have participated in an aver-age of 2.2 reviews, with a maximum of 19.To ensure that experts are not perceived asbeing part of recurring or other assessment


processes, the CIE generally does notallow participation by the same experts inconsecutive reviews or in more than onereview that addresses a particular issue.This promotes independence and diversityof input, and prevents development ofpotential conflicts of interest.

Primarily because of conflict of interestconcerns, 72% of the CIE reviewers havecome from outside the United States(Figure 3). In addition to avoiding eventhe perception of a conflict of interest,reviewers from overseas often provide afresh point of view and a greater sense ofindependence. The tradeoff is that foreignreviewers generally lack local knowledgeand familiarity with U.S. laws and man-agement priorities. These factors arecompensated for by requiring reviewers toprepare for their reviews by reading anextensive set of background documents.

CASE STUDIES

The case studies described below illus-trate successful CIE reviews, includingthe circumstances surrounding thereviews, the activities and deliverablesrequired of the reviewers, and the impactsof their reviews. Case Study 1 describes acrisis in a key agency science program,which the CIE helped to resolve, andwhich had lasting impacts on both CIEand agency operations. Case Study 2describes a comparatively routine scien-tific review, in which the

recommendations of the reviewers pro-vided useful guidance for improving aspecific project.

Case 1: “Trawlgate,” Amendment 13, andthe Groundfish Assessment Review Meeting

Twenty groundfish stocks are managedunder the Northeast Multispecies FisheryManagement Plan (FMP). These stockshave been traditional mainstays of thecommercial fishing sector in NewEngland. Their decline has been widelyreported in the scientific literature (e.g.,NRC 1998b) and in other media for thebroader public (e.g., Fordham 1996). In

2001 estimates of fishing mortality rates(or proxies) were available for 19 of the 20stocks. Of those 19 stocks, fishing mortal-ity rates declined between 1994 and 2001for 15, and increased for only 4, andbiomass estimates had increased for 19 ofthe 20 stocks since 1995 (US DOC 2002).Nonetheless, based on stock assessmentsderived in large part from data generatedby standardized trawl surveys conductedusing the Northeast Fisheries ScienceCenter’s (NEFSC’s) Albatross IV, therebuilding rates were determined to bebelow rebuilding targets. To comply withrulings of the U.S. District Court, in 2002

Figure 2. Numbers and types of CIE reviews, 1999-2005. Recurring stock assessment processes are those incorporated into regional assessmentprocesses (SARC, SEDAR, and STAR).

Figure 3. Nationalities of CIE reviewers, 1999 through September 2006.


the New England Fishery Management Council proposedAmendment 13 of the FMP, which required major cuts in com-mercial fishing. The public debate over Amendment 13 becamehighly contentious and politicized.

The issue that became known as “Trawlgate” burst onto thescene in this already highly charged atmosphere in the autumn of2002 (Daley and Cook 2003; Van Zile 2003). Commercial fish-ermen speculated that the cables connecting the net to thewinches on the Albatross IV were not properly marked, leading touneven cable lengths on port and starboard and potentially skew-ing the net while fishing. The offset ranged from less than oneinch at 100 meters of deployed cable, to just under 6 feet at 300meters of deployed cable. This apparent defect perhaps causedthe nets to be towed asymmetrically during eight bottom-trawlsurveys conducted between 2000 and 2002. Acrimonious chal-lenges to the credibility of the surveys, the resultant stockassessments, and Amendment 13 immediately followed.

These events required rapid and credible responses fromNOAA Fisheries (www.nefsc.noaa.gov/survey_gear/). TheNEFSC conducted gear performance experiments and detailedanalyses of the degree to which the surveys in question hadaffected the groundfish stock assessments. A public workshop,termed the Groundfish Assessment Review Meeting (GARM),was held in October 2002 to present the results of these studies.A second public peer-review workshop was held in February 2003to review the results of the GARM and for broader discussions ofthe trawl surveys, groundfish assessments, biological referencepoints for Amendment 13, and stock rebuilding projections. Inaddition, the NOAA Administrator ordered all of the fisheriesscience centers around the coasts of the United States to developand implement written protocols for conducting their trawl sur-veys.

Three independent peer reviews conducted by the CIE werecritical to establishing the scientific credibility of these responses.The first of these reviews was of the October GARM, which wasattended by two CIE reviewers. Their reports concurred with theNEFSC’s analyses showing that the trawl offsets did not have amajor effect on the survey data, and that the data could be usedin the assessments underlying Amendment 13 (Darby 2002;Volstad 2002). The CIE provided a panel of four reviewers plus apanel chair for the February peer-review workshop. The four pan-elists each provided an individual review report. The chairprovided a report summarizing the views expressed in the fourpanelist reports (Payne 2003), which was a new type of CIE prod-uct at the time. These reports concluded that the sensitivity testscarried out by the NEFSC scientists had demonstrated that thesurvey data could be used unadjusted in the groundfish stockassessments, and made numerous technical recommendationsregarding the surveys and assessments. The NEFSC compiled apoint-by-point response to the reviews from the February peer-review workshop (www.nefsc.noaa.gov/groundfish/response.pdf),and committed in a letter to the New England FisheryManagement Council to follow up on the major points raised bythe reviewers (www.nefsc.noaa.gov/groundfish/cover.pdf). Thesereviews and follow-up actions effectively put an end to theTrawlgate matter (S. Murawski, NOAA Fisheries, personal com-munication). Subsequently, the council adopted Amendment 13.Finally, the trawl protocols developed by NOAA Fisheries werereviewed by two CIE (Godo 2003; Walsh 2003) and four otherreviewers, including two commercial fishermen. Protocols requir-

��

��

�� !��"�#$��%�&�� !��#��

��

��

��

�� !�� !� ��

��"� �� #�� $%�� &''�'''� �� (��#�� )� �� #�� #�� !� �� $%� �� *��+

� ,� �� -�� (�� .��/�� 0� �� 1 ��* ��/�1*0 �� ,�� ,��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��


ing frequent, precise re-measurements arenow in place in all NOAA fishery sciencecenters. A positive aspect of this episode isthat these protocols ensure more standard-ized and repeatable sampling.

Case 2: Abundance of the coastalbottlenose dolphin in U.S. continentalshelf waters between New Jersey andFlorida during winter and summer 2002

After massive die-offs of bottlenosedolphins in the late 1980s, NOAAFisheries declared the Atlantic stocks ofcoastal bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops trun-cates) to be depleted, and created aCoastal Bottlenose Dolphin TakeReduction Team (TRT), consisting of sci-entists, recreational and commercialfishermen, and representatives from theenvironmental community. The TRT wasresponsible for recommending policies toreduce incidental takes of bottlenose dol-phin by gill-net fisheries. Because most ofthe available estimates of dolphin abun-dance were speculative, the NOAASoutheast Fisheries Science Center(SEFSC) undertook research to estimatebottlenose dolphin abundance in the U.S.Atlantic coastal waters. Several aerial sur-veys were conducted over the continentalshelf between New Jersey and Florida, andextensive skin-biopsy samples were col-lected during 2001 and 2002 to enablegenetic identification of coastal versus off-shore morphotypes and to describe theirspatial distributions. A report on theseactivities, entitled “Abundance of theCoastal Morphotype of BottlenoseDolphin, Tursiops truncates, in U.S.Continental Shelf Waters Between NewJersey and Florida During Winter andSummer 2002” (Garrison et al. 2003), wasthe subject of a CIE review duringFebruary 2003.

The CIE selected a panel of threeinternationally recognized scientists, withexpertise in stock assessment, genetics,and marine mammalogy, to review thisreport by correspondence. The statementof work for the review specified that thereviewers evaluate: (1) the appropriate-ness of the design, execution, and analysisof the aerial surveys; (2) the appropriate-ness of the statistical methodologies usedto distinguish the spatial distributions andhabitats of the coastal versus offshore mor-photypes; (3) the appropriateness of theresulting abundance estimate for coastalbottlenose dolphins; and (4) whether

potential biases had been adequately iden-tified and appropriate measures ofstatistical uncertainty had been includedin the resulting abundance estimates.

The panelists independently con-cluded that the aerial survey had followedan appropriate design and used adequatemethods for data analysis, had used appro-priate statistical methods fordistinguishing coastal from offshore dol-phins, and had produced reasonableestimates of coastal bottlenose dolphinabundance. In addition, the reviewersmade several recommendations that sub-sequently resulted in modifications to theprocess of surveying coastal bottlenosedolphins. For example, concerns aboutpotential changes in dolphin abundanceand inter-annual variability in distributionled SEFSC personnel to schedule surveysin winter 2003 and summer 2004 thatfilled data gaps left by the biopsy samplingduring 2002. Other issues raised by thereviewers were considered by NOAAFisheries, but not acted on. One reviewernoted that the research report did notconsider the estuarine dolphin popula-tions, whose presence in the survey areacould have influenced the coastal dolphinabundance estimates.

IMPACTS OF THE CIE ONNOAA FISHERIES’ SCIENCE

The CIE has had significant impacts onthe science conducted by NOAAFisheries. Perhaps the most tangibleimpacts have been at the scale of therecurring regional stock assessment andreview processes: the SARC for theNortheast; SEDAR for the Southeast,Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean; andSTAR for the Pacific. CIE reviewers arenow integral to all three of these pro-cesses, because of the benefits theirpresence provides. Recent SARC reviewpanels have been composed entirely ofCIE reviewers. Based on the experiencesfrom the February 2003 groundfish peer-review panel, SARC review panels nowhave a chair provided by the CIE. In addi-tion to running the panel, the chairprovides a report summarizing the com-ments of the other reviewers, which is aproduct more easily used by the clients.SEDAR panels are now a mix of CIE andother reviewers. The SEDAR reviews typ-ically utilize a chair supplied by the CIE.The STAR panels are also a mix of CIEand other reviewers. Although these

recurring processes differ somewhat indetail, all involve the peer review of stockassessments that have been developed byNOAA Fisheries, and the products ofthese processes, including the CIEreviews, are provided as managementadvice to the regional fisheries manage-ment councils.

Many of the tangible impacts of CIEreviews are at the scale of the specific pro-jects, such as constructive criticismsleading to modifications to stock assess-ments, field methods, and applied researchprojects. The case studies described aboveare examples. The tuna/dolphin issue inthe Eastern Tropical Pacific provides anongoing example of CIE reviews impact-ing a high-profile NOAA Fisheriesscience program. In the yellowfin tunapurse-seine fishery, nets are deployedaround dolphin schools that associatewith the tuna and are easier to detect.Historically this fishery killed up to350,000 dolphins per year (U.S. DOC2000). With the passage of the MarineMammal Protection Act in 1972 and sub-sequent legislation, such as theInternational Dolphin ConservationProgram Act in 1997, direct, observedmortality caused by fishing operations hasbeen greatly reduced. The dolphins arestill encircled by the nets, but most arereleased alive. Nonetheless, the affecteddolphin populations have not recovered.The CIE has conducted a total of eightpeer reviews on aspects of this problembetween 1999 and 2006. The sevenreviews conducted between 1999 and2002 addressed ecosystem carrying capac-ity, physiological, and behavioral changescaused by the stress of encirclement by thepurse seines, and stock assessment meth-ods for determining dolphin populations.After the 2002 reviews, NOAA Fisheriesdeveloped a new research plan for deter-mining why the populations are still notrecovering (US DOC 2006). The 2006CIE review evaluated this plan, providingconstructive criticisms of the scope, orga-nization, and proposed methods.

Although the benefits are not easilyquantified, the CIE has also had intangi-ble impacts on NOAA Fisheries’ scienceand the management that depends on it.CIE reviews have quelled controversywhen the agency’s science has been chal-lenged, as described in the Trawlgate casestudy. In reference to the CIE, the U.S.Commission on Ocean Policy (2004)stated, “Although the center’s experts


have examined a number of controversial topics, their reviewshave so far been less subject to challenge than internal NMFSpeer reviews.” Even when reviewers report legitimate shortcom-ings in the science, the very fact that the agency has brought inindependent reviewers is a key first step in identifying and solv-ing the problems and bolstering science quality and credibilityover the long term.

FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS

Quality assurance for the reviewers and the review process,and assessment of the impacts of reviews on the agency’s science,are issues that may receive attention in the future. These typesof information could be useful for improving the quality of theproducts delivered to NOAA Fisheries and improving howreviews are conducted, as well as for eliminating individuals fromthe reviewer pool who do not perform adequately.Questionnaires have been drafted to address some of these issues,but they have not been fully developed or used, and there hasbeen no substantive consideration of performance metrics.Currently the quality of reviews is assessed informally by theCIE’s coordination team and steering committee. There is noformal mechanism for obtaining feedback from NOAA Fisherieson the quality or relevance of the reviews. There is some risk inproviding a forum for the agency to evaluate the reviewers, as itcould compromise the independence of the reviewer selectionprocess. Other than through the contents of their reports, thereis no mechanism by which reviewers can provide feedback to theCIE about the reviews in which they participate.

CONCLUSIONS

The CIE has proven to be a successful approach for obtainingindependent peer reviews of NOAA Fisheries’ science products.Where the science has been of high quality, the CIE’s reviewshave generally provided independent confirmation. This out-come has bolstered the credibility of the agency’s science to awide range of stakeholders, and helped to reduce the con-tentiousness that can accompany management decision makingin the face of competing economic and societal values. Wherereviewers have identified shortcomings, their recommendationshave often provided valuable guidance for improvements. Assuch, the CIE could be a model for other natural resource andenvironmental agencies.

It can be anticipated that the need for peer review will con-tinue to increase in the foreseeable future. Demand from withinNOAA Fisheries for CIE reviews is continuing to grow, fueled inpart by the requirements of the Information Quality Act and theOMB Peer Review Bulletin. As fisheries management begins totransition from the current single-species focus to ecosystem-based approaches, the underlying science and managementdecisions will become more complex, which will likely lead to anincreased need for independent peer review. It is probable thatother regulatory agencies at all levels of government will experi-ence similar growth in the need for peer review. Thus, entitiesthat can meet this need, like the CIE, will likely become morecommon as time goes on.

�� !��"�#$��%�&�� !��#��

��

�� !��"��#$%��& ��"�"��'()��"��*)%��(+�� ,��-

� )�"�� "��&��.�� "�

� /��"�� "��&��"��

� )��"�� +�� ,��.��&��01

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Center for Independent Experts wasstarted through the efforts of William Foxand Elizabeth Clarke, when they wererespectively director and biologicaloceanographer at the NOAA FisheriesOffice of Science and Technology. TerrySmith, Lance Garrision, and ElizabethClarke from NOAA Fisheries and JohnCarmichael from the South AtlanticFisheries Management Council providedinformation used in developing the casestudies. Steven Murawski and JohnBoreman provided insiders’ perspectives onthe events surrounding Amendment 13,and Paul Rago provided the photographs.Tom Barry and Aric Bickel have providedexcellent operational support for the CIE.Drafts of this article benefited from com-ments from Samuel Pooley, JamesWeinberg, and William Richards. The com-ments of two anonymous reviewersprovided another demonstration of thevalue of peer review in improving the qual-ity of science products.

REFERENCES

CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality).2004. U.S. ocean action plan. CEQ,Washington, D.C. Available at:ocean.ceq.gov/actionplan.pdf

Chubin, D. E., and E. J. Hackett. 1990.Peerless science: peer review and U.S.science policy. State University of NewYork Press, Albany.

Daley, B., and G. Cook. 2003. Sea change:the New England fishing crisis. TheBoston Globe (October 26-29): A1.

Darby, C. D. 2002. Independent experts reportof the Groundfish Assessment ReviewMeeting, Woods Hole, 8-11 October 2002.Center for Independent Experts, Universityof Miami, Miami, Florida.

Fordham, S. V. 1996. New Englandgroundfish: from glory to grief. A portraitof America’s most devastated fishery.Center for Marine Conservation,Washington, DC.

Garrison, L. P., P. E. Rosel, A. Hohn, R.Baird, and W. Hoggard. 2003. Abundanceof the coastal morphotype of bottlenosedolphin, Tursiops truncates, in U.S.continental shelf waters between NewJersey and Florida during winter andsummer 2002. National Marine FisheriesService, Southeast Fisheries ScienceCenter, Miami, Florida.

Godo, O. R. 2003. Review of NOAAprotocols for groundfish bottom trawl

surveys. Center for Independent Experts,University of Miami, Miami, Florida.

Information Quality Act. 2000. Section 515of the Treasury and General GovernmentAppropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001(Public Law 106-554).

NRC (National Research Council). 1998a.Improving fish stock assessments. NationalAcademy Press, Washington, D.C.

_____. 1998b. Review of Northeast fisherystock assessments. National AcademyPress, Washington, D.C.

_____. 2000. Improving the collection,management, and use of marine fisheriesdata. National Academy Press,Washington, D.C.

_____. 2002. Science and its role in theNational Marine Fisheries Service.National Academy Press, Washington,D.C.

_____. 2004. Improving the use of the “bestavailable information” standard in fisheriesmanagement. National Academy Press,Washington, D.C.

OMB (Office of Management and Budget).2004. Final information quality bulletin forpeer review. OMB, Washington, D.C.

Payne, A. I. L. 2003. Report on thegroundfish science peer review meeting,February 2-8, 2003. Center forIndependent Experts, University of Miami,Miami, Florida.

Rassam, G. N., and J. Geubtner. 2006. Peerreview and scientific societies. Fisheries31(2): 83.

Revkin, A. C. 2006. Climate expert saysNASA tried to silence him. The New YorkTimes (January 29): A1.

Sullivan, P. J., J. M. Acheson, P. L.Angermeier, T. Faast, J. Flemma, C. M.Jones, E. E. Knudsen, T. J. Minello, D.H. Secor, R. Wunderlich, and B. A.Zanetell. 2006. Defining andimplementing best available science forfisheries and environmental science,policy, and management. Fisheries 31(9):460-465.

USCOP (U.S. Commission on OceanPolicy). 2004. Ocean blueprint for the 21stcentury. USCOP, Washington, D.C.Available at: www.oceancommission.gov.

USDOC (U.S. Department of Commerce),NOAA (National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration), NationalMarine Fisheries Service. 2000. MarineMammal Protection Act of 1972 annualreport, January 1, 1998 to December 31,1998. U. S. DOC, NOAA, NMFS, Officeof Protected Resources, Silver Spring,Maryland.

_____. 2001. Marine fisheries stockassessment improvement plan. Report ofthe National Marine Fisheries ServiceNational Task Force for Improving FishStock Assessments. U.S. DOC, NOAATech. Memo. NMFS F/SPO-56, SilverSpring, Maryland.

_____. 2002. Assessment of 20 Northeastgroundfish stocks through 2001: a report ofthe Groundfish Assessment ReviewMeeting (GARM), Northeast FisheriesScience Center, Woods Hole,Massachusetts, October 8-11, 2002. U.S.DOC, Northeast Fisheries Science CenterReference Document 02-16, Woods Hole,Massachusetts.

_____. 2004a. NMFS strategic plan forfisheries research. U.S. DOC, NOAATech. Memo. NMFS F/SPO-61, SilverSpring, Maryland.

_____. 2004b. A requirements plan forimproving the understanding of the statusof U.S. protected marine species. Report ofthe NOAA Fisheries National Task Forcefor Improving Marine Mammal and TurtleStock Assessments. U.S. DOC, NOAATech. Memo. NMFS F/SPO-63, SilverSpring, Maryland.

_____. 2006. Long term research in theEastern Tropical Pacific. A proposal fromthe Southwest Fisheries Science Center,NOAA Fisheries Service, June 2006. U. S.DOC, NOAA, NMFS, SouthwestFisheries Science Center, La Jolla,California.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency). 2000. Peer review handbook,2nd edition. USEPA, Report 100-B-00-001, Washington, D.C.

USFWS and NMFS (U.S. Fish and WildlifeService and National Marine FisheriesService). 1994. Endangered andthreatened wildlife and plants: Notice ofinteragency cooperative policy for peerreview in ESA activities. Federal Register59:126(1 July 1994):34270.

Van Zile, D. 2003. Trawlgate: skepticsredeemed. National Fisherman 83(12): 24-25.

Volstad, J. H. 2002 Review report on the2002 Groundfish Assessment ReviewMeeting (GARM) and its findings andrecommendations. Center for IndependentExperts, University of Miami, Miami,Florida.

Walsh, S. J. 2003. Peer review of NOAAprotocols for groundfish bottom trawlsurveys of the nation’s fishery resources.Center for Independent Experts,University of Miami, Miami, Florida.


INTRODUCTION

Queen conch (Strombus gigas) is a com-mercially-valuable marine gastropod thatranges throughout the Caribbean toBermuda. It is the basis of a lucrativeexport market to the United States andEurope that was estimated at $60 millionUSD in 2001 (CITES 2003). Fishing pres-sure is intense and has led to significantdeclines in most populations over the pasttwo decades. The conch fishery crashed inFlorida and has not recovered toexploitable levels despite a 20-year fishingmoratorium and an active reintroductionprogram (Glazer and Berg 1994). The sta-tus and trends of regional queen conchfisheries led to listing of the species onAppendix II of the Convention onInternational Trade in EndangeredSpecies (CITES) in 1990. TheInternational Union for the Conservationof Nature (IUCN) categorized the speciesas “commercially threatened” on the 1994Red List (Groombridge 1994). Morerecently, the CITES Authority imposed asuspension of the export trade from the

Dominican Republic, Honduras, andHaiti in 2003 based on evidence fordeclining stocks and the absence of aneffective regulatory framework (Theile2001; CITES 2003). In 2004, additionalsuspensions were implemented forAntigua and Barbuda, Barbados,Dominica, and Trinidad and Tobago.Fisheries in 13 other countries were cate-gorized as “of possible concern.”

Queen conch is harvested in over 25Caribbean countries, but fishery regula-tions vary considerably (Berg and Olsen1989; Chakalall and Cochrane 1997). Forexample, regulations may include shellsize and/or meat weight limits (Bahamas,Bonaire, Puerto Rico and the U.S. VirginIslands, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincentand the Grenadines, Turks and CaicosIslands), closed season (Mexico, PuertoRico and the U.S. Virgin Islands,Venezuela), and prohibition of fishingusing scuba technology (Turks and CaicosIslands). Some countries (Bahamas,Dominica, Panama) have set landings orexport quotas, but verification is difficultdue to insufficient monitoring and report-

ing (CITES 2003). A few countries haveno fishery regulations or managementplans for this species.

Belize is one of 13 countries fromwhich the CITES Authority has requestedstock assessment and management plans. Iused a long-term dataset on queen conchpopulation fluctuation in a large, isolatedno-take marine reserve in Belize to con-duct a fishery-independent assessment ofthe potential productivity of the stock.These data were compared to equivalentdata from adjacent fishing grounds to eval-uate fishing impacts and the efficacy of theexisting fishery regulations. Results fromthe Belize case study are discussed in rela-tion to regional fishery management andwhether intervention by CITES is war-ranted.

THE BELIZE QUEEN CONCH FISHERY

Belize is the seventh largest exporter ofprocessed conch meat. The fishery regula-tions include a closed season from 1 July to30 September, a minimum shell length of17.8 cm or processed meat weight of 85 g,and prohibition of fishing using scuba equip-ment. The closed season was designated toencompass the reported peak period ofreproductive activity during summermonths. Commercial fishermen are issuedlicenses, but no limited entry system or indi-vidual catch quota has been established.Landings of conch and other commercialspecies are recorded as catch sold toexporters. There are few reliable estimates ofthe total landings that include catch sold inthe legal local market, the illegal market forunder-sized conch, and poaching by foreign

Impending Trade Suspensions of Caribbean Queen Conch under CITES:

A Case Study on Fishery Impacts and Potential for Stock Recovery

FEATURE:FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

Charles A. AcostaAcosta is an assistant professor in theDepartment of Biological Sciences atNorthern Kentucky University, HighlandHeights, and is a research associate with theWildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, NewYork. He can be contacted [email protected].

ABSTRACT: The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species(CITES) Authority issued injunctions in 2003 and 2004 to halt export trade ofCaribbean queen conch (Strombus gigas) from several countries and initiatedreviews of a number of other conch-producing countries. The current regula-tory framework for regional conch fisheries has obviously failed to protectstocks. I present a case study of the Belize conch fishery to examine fishingimpacts, effectiveness of existing regulations, and potential for populationrecovery. Fishery-independent data from a no-take marine reserve indicatedthat unfished density and biomass were nearly an order of magnitude greaterthan in comparable fished areas. Size structure of the protected populationshowed that an average of 38% of the legal catch may consist of juvenile conch.The spawning potential ratio indicated that the fished stock is severely over-exploited, and furthermore, the protected population has not compensated tomake the local fishery sustainable. Under these conditions, a moratorium underCITES may be warranted. Until stock assessment models are refined, actionshould be taken to reduce juvenile fishing mortality, extend closed seasons, andenforce a network of functional no-take reserves in essential habitat.


fishers from neighboring countries (CITES 2003). Fishing is con-centrated in relatively shallow water < 10 m deep in seagrassmeadows, sand-algal flats, and near shallow coral reefs.

Maximum queen conch landings in Belize was reported as1,200 metric tons (mt) in 1972, but landings declined rapidlyafter this period (CITES 2003; Camillo 2004). The mean annualcatch reported by Belize fishery managers was about 200 mtbetween 1990 and 2004, but these figures were substantiallyhigher that those verified by CITES. In response to the CITESnotification, the Belize Fisheries Department set an export quotaof 228 mt, plus a “local consumption” quota of 12 mt per yearbased on maximum sustainable yield (MSY) estimates (Anon.2004). The Belize conch fishery was considered stable based onexports (Anon. 2004), even though landings are currently a frac-tion of the past maximum, fishing effort has clearly increased,and yield estimates are based on short time-series data (CFMC1999; Camillo 2004).

FISHERY-INDEPENDENT SURVEYS AND ANALYSIS

Data were collected at Glover’s Reef atoll, Belize, from 1997 to2004. Preliminary sampling on east-west transects across the atollindicated that primary conch habitat consisted of shallow (1-5 m)back reef and patch reef margins with clean sand substratum (spawn-ing habitat), sparse seagrass, and abundant macroalgae Laurencia spp.(primary food source; Stoner 2003) (Figure 1). The soft silt substra-tum in the deeper lagoon and the dense coral cover on the forereef

appeared to be unsuitable for conch. Glover’s Reef was designated amarine protected area in 1993, but full-time enforcement was absentuntil 1998. Fishing is allowed in the General Use Zone (266 km2)and prohibited in the Conservation Zone (72.3 km2).

Queen conch were surveyed on a quarterly basis in the no-takeConservation Zone and the fished General Use Zone in a stratifiedrandom sampling design. Within each zone, sampling was con-ducted on 12 replicate 4 x 50 m belt transects (4 random transectsat 3 general locations per zone) in seagrass/algal flats and on 5-mbelt transects around the margins of 8 patch reefs. All conch weremeasured for total shell length (SL; to nearest 0.5 cm) from the tipof the spire to the siphonal groove. Adult conch have determinateshell growth in which lengthening ceases with the onset of sexualmaturity as a flared shell lip develops (Egan 1985). The marginalshell lip continually thickens with age, but sexual maturity mightbe reached up to one year after the initial formation of the shell lip(Appeldoorn 1988). Thickness of the shell lip (LT; to nearest 1mm) was measured and presence of a shell lip > 1 mm thick wastaken as an indication of maturity. Reproductive activity was notedby the presence of egg masses or occurrence of mating or spawning.

For analysis, size classes were defined as: (1) juvenile recruit < 12cm SL, (2) large juvenile > 12 cm SL without shell lip, (3) adultwith flared shell lip. Fluctuations in density (log+1 transformeddata) were analyzed using a doubly multivariate repeated measuresanalysis of variance (RMANOVA) with size classes and zones asbetween-subjects factors. Pillai’s trace statistic was used to detectdifferences in density, and Bonferroni tests were used for post-hoccomparisons of factor levels. The error covariance matrix wasinspected using Mauchley’s test of sphericity, and homogeneity oferror variances were checked using Levene’s test of equal variances.

Change in exploitable adult biomass was assessed from indi-vidual adult weights calculated using shell morphometrics(Appeldoorn 1988):

The trapezoidal rule of integration was used to compare themagnitude of biomass differences in the no-take and fished areasover the seven year survey period. Spawning stock biomass (SSB)within protected and fished areas was then calculated as (Ault etal. 1998):

The SSB estimates were used to calculate the reproductivepotential for replenishing the stock and sustaining this fishery asthe Spawning Potential Ratio (SPR; Goodyear 1993):

Figure 1. Map of the Glover’s Reef atoll, Belize, showing the no-take marinereserve (Conservation Zone). All other areas are fished (General Use Zone).


SPR was calculated on an annual basisfrom quarterly moving averages of biomassper unit area. The benchmark for theSSBunfished estimate was taken as the max-imum annual biomass recorded in theno-take zone.

FISHERY IMPACTS

With the paucity of reliable catch andeffort data, fishery-independent data fromthis no-take reserve with relatively consis-tent enforcement yielded valuable insightsinto fishing impacts and potential produc-tivity. The density of adult conch in thispopulation increased significantly since1998 (Pillai’s = 0.682, F = 3.543,P < 0.0001), primarily in the no-take zone(mean±SE: 240.3±50.6 per ha) comparedto the fished zone (range from 10.9±5.9 in1999 to 41.9±15.3 in 2000; BonferroniP < 0.0001; Figure 2). The mean densitiesin the fished zone were well below levelsat which depensation has been shown tooccur in conch populations (Stoner andRay-Culp 2000; Gascoigne and Lipcius2004).

Occasional sharp declines in adult den-sity occurred in the no-take zone in 2003and 2004. Conch may undertake ontoge-netic movement to deeper habitats withage (Stoner and Sandt 1992). However,extensive deep-water habitats for conchwere lacking in this atoll, and no migra-tions were recorded during survey periodsor during mark-recapture and telemetryexperiments (Acosta 2002; Acosta et al.unpublished data). These declines insteadqualitatively coincided with extendedperiods of no enforcement at the reserve(manager’s log, Glover’s Reef ResearchStation; A. Branson, pers. comm.), and assuch, may be due to occasional poaching.

The density of large juveniles wasgreater in the no-take zone (P = 0.02), butthe density of recruiting juveniles was sim-ilar in both areas (P = 0.99). One possibleexplanation for this discrepancy is thatcurrent fishery regulations allow fishing ofall conch > 17.8 cm SL regardless ofwhether a shell lip is present. An averageof 37.9% (range 0 to 92%) of the potentialcatch in the no-take zone in any givenyear consisted of juveniles (Figure 3).

There were no differences in the trendsfor individual adult weight, averaging

Figure 2. Summary of quarterly fluctuation in density of three age classes of queen conch in no-take and fished areas of Glover’s Reef. Blank spaces represent missing surveys. Standard errorestimation and statistical analysis are presented in text.

Figure 3. Density of adult queen conch withfully-formed shell lips, compared to density ofall conch larger than the minimum fishablesize (> 17.8 SL) in the protected population.


174.5±9.8 g in the no-take zone and160±9.4 g in the fished area (Figure 4).Due to density changes, mean adultbiomass increased in the no-take zonefrom 4.8±2.2 kg/ha in 1997 to 36.7±7.1kg/ha in 2002 (Figure 4), whereas meanbiomass in the fished zone ranged from5.9±1.9 in 1998 to 1.7±0.7 kg/ha in 1999.Over time, therefore, exploitable biomassin the no-take zone (506 kg/ha) wasapproximately six times greater than in

the fished area (85 kg/ha). Assuming sim-ilar productivity in fished and no-takehabitats, the fishery may remove morethan 80% of the exploitable adult biomassevery year.

The SPR for the queen conch popula-tion at Glover’s Reef increased from 0.13in 1997 to a maximum level of 0.29 in2000 (Figure 5). The point of overfishingis assumed to be 30% of the SPR asdefined by Rosenberg et al. (1996). If we

assume this is a self-recruiting population,it remained overexploited even with sub-stantial increases in density and spawningstock biomass over 5 years. The popula-tion increase in the no-take zone (21% ofthe total area) has still not compensatedfor the intensity of fishing in exploitedhabitats. Finally, spawning activity wasrecorded as early as May and as late asNovember, compared to the designatedclosed season of July to September.

PRIORITIES FOR RECOVERYAND SUSTAINABILITY

The CITES Authority has requestedassessments and management plans forqueen conch from Belize and 12 othercountries. Current problems with conchstock assessments discussed in a 1999report included short catch-effort timeseries data and unreliable estimates oflandings (CFMC 1999). Berg and Olsen(1989) showed that results of two MSYestimates for the Bahamas that differed byat least an order of magnitude.

A major problem is the legal standardfor fishable conch based on shell length ormeat weight set in 1978. Size at maturityin conch is highly variable, and the 17.8cm SL size regulation provides for legalfishing of a substantial proportion of juve-niles (Appeldoorn 1988). On average,almost 40% of the fishable conch popula-tion at Glover’s Reef was immature.Equally ineffective is the alternative regu-lation for legal meat weight of 85 g.Estimated mean adult meat weight wastwice this legal standard. Again, the regu-lation likely allows for legal fishing ofjuveniles. These results are consistentwith previous studies (e.g., Gibson et al.1983). The current practice of processingmeat and discarding shells at sea facilitatestransportation, but it makes limiting thecatch to adults difficult to regulate.Currently, only Martinique and St.Vincent/Grenadines are reported to pro-hibit fishing of conch without flared shelllips (Chakalall and Cochrane 1997).Adaptive management options includerequiring market delivery of conch inshells or substantially increasing the mini-mum size/weight regulation to encompassvariability in maturity. Both optionswould decrease total landings initially butwould likely increase yield per recruit(YPR) within a few years.

The Belize fishery closed season fromJuly to September is based on early studieson the Florida conch population (D’Asaro

Figure 4. Mean individual biomass of adult queen conch (±1 SE; lower panel) and total spawningstock biomass (SSB; upper panel) in no-take (filled circles) and fished zones (open circles) atGlover’s Reef, Belize.

Figure 5. Spawning potential ratio (SPR) of the queen conch population at Glover’s Reef, Belize.The point of overfishing is shown as 0.3 of the SPR (dashed line).


1965). The majority of spawning in mostpopulations is concentrated in the sum-mer months, but the breeding season inpopulations farther south in theCaribbean may be substantially longer,perhaps even year-round (see Stoner et al.1992 for review). The actual breeding sea-son at Glover’s Reef is consistent with thislatter pattern, extending from early Maythrough late November. Reproductiveoutput would likely increase with a longerclosed season because adult conch mayspawn multiple times during a breedingseason. Additionally, an extended closuremight allow more first-year breeders toreproduce (Gascoigne and Lipcius 2004),as opposed to the current fishery thatimposes high mortality on older juvenilesand first-year adults.

Overall density and biomass of conchat Glover’s Reef have increased by nearlyan order of magnitude, supporting predic-tions of a previous spatially-explicitpopulation model for this particularreserve (Acosta 2002). Assuming thatoccasional poaching is not limiting theSPR to < 0.3, what increase in size of theno-fishing area would increase the SPR toa sustainable level? The predicted increasein conch abundance is approximately 50%if the no-fishing area is 31% of the totalarea (Acosta 2002), compared to the cur-rent 21%. This would potentially increasethe SPR to well over 0.3 to compensatefor current fishing levels. Studies in otherCaribbean reserves showed similarincreases in abundance (Stoner and Ray1996; Béné and Tewfik 2003), whereas nopopulation increases were apparent inothers (Schweizer and Posada 2002; Torresand Sullivan-Sealy 2002). Differences insurvey methods, length of time series, andthe lack of information on enforcementand poaching are problematic for furthercomparisons.

Nevertheless, the theoretical founda-tion of the role of enforced no-take zonesin fisheries management is well estab-lished (e.g., Guénette et al. 1998). Formost sedentary species with high fishingmortality, no-take reserves with optimalconfiguration (size, shape, essential habi-tats) are expected to increase yieldthrough increased reproduction andrecruitment (Hastings and Botsford 1999).However, for the particular case of theGlover’s Reef conch population, the pro-tected area does not compensate foroverfishing or depensation in the fishedarea. This may be due to any number of

factors including insufficient habitat areaunder protection, insufficient self-recruit-ment, or poaching.

The response to the CITES notifica-tion by Belize fishery management waslargely based on the reliance on eightmarine reserves (several of which cur-rently have little or no full-timeenforcement) and the reported existenceof a deep water stock of uncertain size(Anon. 2004). No changes in fishery reg-ulations were proposed. In effect, futureyield and sustainability of this conch fish-ery are based solely on the assumption thatspawning stocks from these two sourceswill continue to supply adequate numbersof recruits to support current and futurefishing levels. While there is a distinctpossibility of self-recruitment within theBelize barrier reef ecosystem (Cowen et al.2006), no reliable stock-recruitment mod-els for queen conch have been developed.

Are stronger restrictions on Caribbeanqueen conch fisheries under CITES war-ranted? Closing export markets for conchwould certainly impose significant eco-nomic hardships on the conch-producingcountries (FAO 2004). In the case ofBelize, this restriction would decreasetheir export fisheries market by more than25%. The results reported here indicatethat these stocks continue to be severelyovercapitalized and that regional fisherymanagement needs to be more adaptive topreclude CITES intervention. In additionto establishing and enforcing no-takereserves, immediate action can be taken tostrengthen regulations to reduce juvenilefishing mortality and increase reproduc-tive output.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I thank the Belize FisheriesDepartment, the staff of the Glover’s ReefResearch Station, and the WildlifeConservation Society for field assistanceand support. A. Branson, J. Gibson, D.Westby, and two anonymous reviewersprovided extensive feedback and recom-mendations. This is contribution No. 027of the Glover’s Reef Research Station.

REFERENCES

Acosta, C. A. 2002. Spatially explicit dispersaldynamics and equilibrium population sizesin marine harvest refuges. ICES Journal ofMarine Science 59:458-468.

Anonymous. 2004. Belize national conchreport. Report submitted to CITES. BelizeFisheries Department; Ministry of Fisheries,Cooperatives, Commerce, and Industry;Government of Belize; Belize City.

Appeldoorn, R. S. 1988. Age determination,growth, mortality and age of firstreproduction in adult queen conch,Strombus gigas L., off Puerto Rico. FisheriesResearch 6:363-378.

Ault, J. S., J. A. Bohnsack, and G. A.Meester. 1998. A retrospective (1979-1996) multispecies assessment of coral reeffish stocks in the Florida Keys. FisheryBulletin 96:395-414.

Béné, C., and A. Tewfik. 2003. Biologicalevaluation of a marine protected area:evidence of crowding effect on a protectedpopulation of queen conch in theCaribbean. P.S.Z.N.: Marine Ecology24:45-58.

Berg, C. J. Jr., and D. A. Olsen. 1989.Conservation and management of queenconch (Strombus gigas) fisheries in theCaribbean. Pages 421-442 in J. F. Caddy,ed. Marine invertebrate fisheries: theirassessment and management. Wiley andSons, New York.

Camillo, C. 2004. World markets and industryof selected commercially-exploited aquaticspecies with an international conservationprofile. FAO Fisheries Circular 990.

CFMC (Caribbean Fishery ManagementCouncil). 1999. Report on the queenconch stock assessment and managementworkshop. CFMC, Belize City, Belize.

Chakalall, B., and K. L. Cochrane. 1997. Thequeen conch fishery in the Caribbean—anapproach to responsible fisheriesmanagement. Proceedings of the Gulf andCaribbean Fisheries Institute 49:531-554.

CITES (Convention on International Tradein Endangered Species). 2003. Review ofsignificant trade in specimens of Appendix-II species (Resolution Conf. 12.8 andDecision 12.75). CITES. AC19 Doc.8.3.

Cowen, R. K., C. B. Paris, and A.Srinivason. 2006. Scaling of connectivityin marine populations. Science 311:522-527.


D’Asaro, C. N. 1965. Organogenesis,development and metamorphosis in thequeen conch, Strombus gigas, with notes onbreeding habits. Bulletin of Marine Science15:359-416.

Egan, B. D. 1985. Aspects of the reproductivebiology of Strombus gigas. M.S. Thesis,University of British Columbia, Vancouver,Canada.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization ofthe Untied Nations). 2004. Report of theexpert consultation on implementationissues associated with listing commercially-exploited aquatic species on CITESappendices. FAO Fisheries Report 741.

Gascoigne, J., and R. N. Lipcius. 2004.Conserving populations at low abundance:delayed functional maturity and Alleeeffects in reproductive behavior of thequeen conch Strombus gigas. MarineEcology Progress Series 284:185-194.

Gibson, J., S. Strasdine, and K. Gonzales.1983. The status of the conch industry inBelize. Proceedings of the Gulf andCaribbean Fisheries Institute 35:99-107.

Glazer, R. A., and C. J. Berg Jr. 1994. Queenconch research in Florida: an overview.Pages 79-95 in R. S. Appeldoorn and B.Rodriguez, eds. Queen conch biology,fisheries, and mariculture. FundaciónCientifica Los Roques, Caracas, Venezuela.

Goodyear, C. P. 1993. Spawning stock biomassper recruit in fisheries management:foundations and current use. Canadian

Special Publication of Fisheries andAquatic Sciences. 120:67-81.

Groombridge, B. 1994. IUCN Red List ofThreatened Species. International Unionfor the Conservation of Nature, Gland,Switzerland.

Guénette, S., T. Lauck, and C. Clark. 1998.Marine reserves: from Beverton and Holt tothe present. Reviews in Fish Biology andFisheries 8:251-272.

Hastings, A., and L. W. Botsford. 1999.Equivalence in yield from marine reservesand traditional fisheries management.Science 284:1537-1538.

Rosenberg, A., and 15 co-authors. 1996.Scientific review of definitions ofoverfishing in U.S. fishery managementplans. NOAA Technical MemorandaNMFS-F/SPO-17, U.S. Department ofCommmerce.

Schweizer, D., and J. M. Posada. 2002.Distribution, density, and abundance of thequeen conch, Strombus gigas, in the LosRoques Archipelago National Park,Venezuela. Proceedings of the Gulf andCaribbean Fisheries Institute 53:129-142.

Stoner, A. W. 2003. What constitutesessential nursery habitat for a marinespecies? A case study of habitat form andfunction for queen conch. Marine EcologyProgress Series 257:275-289.

Stoner, A. W., and V. J. Sandt. 1992.Population structure, seasonal movements,and feeding of queen conch Strombus gigas,

in deep-water habitats of the Bahamas.Bulletin of Marine Science 51:287-300.

Stoner, A. W., V. J. Sandt, and I. F. Boidron-Metairon. 1992. Seasonality inreproductive activity and larval abundanceof queen conch Strombus gigas. FisheryBulletin 90:161-170.

Stoner, A. W., and M. Ray. 1996. Queenconch, Strombus gigas, in fished andunfished locations of the Bahamas: effectsof a marine fishery reserve on adults,juveniles and larval production. FisheryBulletin 94:551-565.

Stoner, A. W., and M. Ray-Culp. 2000.Evidence for Allee effects in an over-harvested marine gastropod: density-dependent mating and egg production.Marine Ecology Progress Series202:297-302.

Theile, S. 2001. Queen conch fisheries andtheir management in the Caribbean.TRAFFIC Europe. Technical Report to theCITES Secretariat, Brussels, Belgium.

Torres, R. E., and K. M. Sullivan-Sealey.2002. Abundance, size frequency, andspatial distribution of queen conch(Strombus gigas) in southeastern DominicanRepublic: a four year population study inParque Nacional del Este. Proceedings ofthe Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute53:120-128.


BACKGROUND

Late in 2005, American FisheriesSociety President Christopher Kohlerformed an ad hoc Open OceanAquaculture Committee to look at devel-opment of aquaculture in the U.S.Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), developa summary of the existing situation, andbegin to understand where this nationmay be going in the future. The commit-tee, chaired by R.R. Stickney, first met byconference call in November 2005. Whilethe group recognized that there is a poten-tial for employing open ocean aquacultureto produce fishes for purposes of stockenhancement, the decision was made tofocus this report on aquaculture develop-ment in the U.S. EEZ for commercialfoodfish production.

Some early publications on permittingin the EEZ, such as Stickney (1997)remain relevant, but the committee alsosought more recent information. One sig-nificant resource was the final report ofthe U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy(2004). Recommendations from Chapter22 of that document include amendingthe National Aquaculture Act to desig-nate the National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration (NOAA) asthe lead federal agency for marine aqua-culture and to create an Office ofSustainable Marine Aquaculture withinNOAA; charging the Office ofSustainable Marine Aquaculture withdeveloping a comprehensive permitting,leasing, and regulatory program; andexpanding research, outreach, and tech-nology transfer funding.

The National Aquaculture Act of2005, which was reintroduced in 2006(hearings were held but the bill has notbeen voted on at the time of this writing),calls for coordination by NOAA withother agencies, the fishery managementcouncils, and the coastal states.

The Congressional Research Serviceupdated a 2004 report on open oceanaquaculture (Borgatti and Buck 2006)that discussed the existing regulatory envi-ronment and mentioned NOAA’s role asthe lead agency in promoting develop-ment of the industry. Of interest is thatcurrently a state with an approved CoastalZone Management Plan (CZMP) can vetofederal permits in the EEZ adjacent totheir state if the permits are not consistentwith the CZMP.

The most recent comprehensive lookat permitting in the EEZ for open oceanaquaculture (Cicin-Sain et al. 2005) con-cluded that NOAA is the preferred leadagency to develop the regulatory schemeand suggested that NOAA create anOffice of Offshore Aquaculture. As anagency within the Department ofCommerce which has an interest in the

Toward Sustainable Open OceanAquaculture in the United States

ESSAY:FISH CULTURE Robert R. Stickney

Barry Costa-PierceDonald M. BaltzMark DrawbridgeChurchill GrimesStephen PhillipsD. LaDon SwannStickney is director of the Texas Sea GrantCollege Program based at Texas A&MUniversity, College Station. He can becontacted at [email protected]. Costa-Pierce is the Rhode Island Sea Grantdirector at the University of Rhode IslandNarragansett Campus. Baltz is with theCoastal Fisheries Institute at LouisianaState University in Baton Rouge.Drawbridge is a senior research biologist atthe Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute inSan Diego, California. Grimes is director ofthe Southwest Fisheries Science Center,Fisheries Ecology Division in Santa Cruz,California. Phillips is program managerwith the Pacific States Marine FisheriesCommission in Portland, Oregon. Swann isdirector for the Mississippi-Alabama SeaGrant Consortium based in Ocean Springs,Mississippi.

ABSTRACT: In response to a request by American Fisheries SocietyPresident Christopher Kohler, we examined the current status of open oceanaquaculture in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the United States, inter-est in open ocean aquaculture activities, the regulatory environment, and thepotential for sustainable development. There is currently little interest in estab-lishing facilities within the EEZ by the commercial sector, largely because of thelack of a formal regulatory structure, though that may be changing as Congressdevelops legislation on aquaculture in the EEZ. Current U.S. open oceanresearch and commercial activities are in state or territorial waters. TheNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is poised to take the pri-mary regulatory lead in the EEZ, with other federal agencies, such as theMinerals Management Service, Army Corps of Engineers, and EnvironmentalProtection Agency participating. Under proposed legislation, coastal stateswould have the opportunity to comment on facilities in the EEZ adjacent totheir jurisdictions. A variety of concerns pertaining to open ocean aquaculturedevelopment have been put forward that relate to environmental sustainabil-ity. We conclude that in the absence of large-scale facilities in the EEZ andassociated research in conjunction with such facilities, the potential risks ofopen ocean aquaculture cannot be adequately evaluated. Data obtained fromopen ocean sites in other countries may or may not be applicable in this coun-try’s EEZ, but international cooperation in sharing environmental informationfrom open ocean aquaculture operations can help researchers and regulatorsdevelop environmental safeguards and have them in place, if and when openocean aquaculture becomes a commercial reality in the United States.


economic viability of such aquacultureactivities, NOAA is well placed to be thelead agency. Thus, there appears to bebroad consensus for NOAA being the leadagency with respect to aquaculture in theEEZ.

Cicin-Sain et al. (2005) made numer-ous recommendations with respect tocollaboration among the various agenciesthat would be involved in the permittingprocess. In addition to NOAA, therewould be involvement by the MineralsManagement Service, NOAA Fisheries(which is a line office in NOAA), and theEnvironmental Protection Agency. (TheArmy Corps of Engineers should also bementioned in this regard.) They suggestedthat four types of leases should be devel-oped: research leases, short-term leases toenable firms time to further develop theirbusiness plans, long-term leases for thosewith fully developed open ocean aquacul-ture business plans, and emergency leasesto allow rapid response for temporary relo-cation of a facility when circumstanceswarrant. Recommendations for environ-mental review and monitoring of openocean aquaculture facilities were alsodeveloped to address carrying capacity,impacts from waste products on the waterand sediments, potential genetic impacts,disease, and other issues.

We obtained additional informationfrom Michael Rubino ([email protected]), who coordinates aquacultureactivities for NOAA Fisheries. He pro-vided information relating to the NOAA’srole in open ocean aquaculture, the needfor development of open ocean aquacul-ture in the U.S. EEZ, the legislation thathas been introduced to Congress, andother documents. The Gulf of MexicoFisheries Management Council has pre-pared a draft amendment on theregulation of open ocean aquaculture inGulf waters and is presently finalizing thatdocument prior to its adoption (WayneSwingle, Gulf of Mexico FisheriesManagement Council, pers. comm.).

In the past several years, numerousmeetings in North America and Irelandfocused on open ocean aquaculture havebeen held. Each led to publication of asymposium volume (Table 1). A bookedited by Bridger (2004) chronicledresearch activity in the Gulf of Mexico inconjunction with development of openocean aquaculture in that water body. Thevolume includes sections on constraintsand sustainability.

Borgatti and Buck (2006) reported thatopen ocean aquaculture facilities (includ-ing those dedicated to research as well ascommercial production) can be found inAustralia, Chile, China, France, Ireland,Italy, Japan, Mexico and Norway. Cobia(Rachycentron canadum) are being pro-duced by Aquasense, LLC in SouthEleuthera, Bahamas, and off CalebraIsland, Puerto Rico. The only two permit-ted commercial open ocean farms in U.S.state waters can be found in Hawaii. CatesInternational produces Pacific threadfin(moi; Polydactylus sexfilis) while Kona BlueWater Farms, LLC is producing amber-jack, Hawiian yellowtail (kampachi;Seriola rivoliana). Both companies targetlocal markets.

PRINCIPAL IMPEDIMENTS

A variety of issues have been raisedwith respect aquaculture in the marineenvironment. Perhaps the most widelycited papers critical of the activity arethose of Goldburg and Triplett (1997),Naylor et al. (1998, 2000), and Goldburget al. (2001). The most widely targetedspecies for criticism have been penaeidshrimp grown in brackish water ponds andsalmon produced in net pens. The criti-cisms range from issues associated withwater quality, impacts on the benthos, useof fishmeal in aquatic animal feeds, use ofexotic species and maintenance of geneticintegrity to those associated with noise,odors, and interference with navigation.Strong condemnation of a plan to estab-lish a fish and shellfish farm in associationwith a decommissioned drilling platform

off California was lodged by Belton et al.(2004) who viewed such activities as “adisaster waiting to happen.” There havebeen numerous articles and stories in themedia about marine aquaculture, many ofwhich have been critical of the activity.

The aquaculture community hasresponded to the criticisms by addressingthe issues raised and developing sustain-able practices in conjunction withmariculture facilities, particularly inNorth America and Europe. Publicationsdealing with responsible and sustainablemarine aquaculture include Bardach(1997), Costa-Pierce (2002) Stickney andMcVey (2002), Bridger and Costa-Pierce(2003), and Jana and Webster (2003).

The focus of attention to date has beenlargely on mariculture in protected coastalwaters. As demonstrated in a study byParametrix (1990), proper siting of netpen facilities associated with salmon cul-ture in the state of Washington wascritical to addressing environmentalissues. Biosecurity is important to preventescapement, thereby addressing the issuesof exotic species use and maintenance ofgenetic integrity. One commonly heardnotion is that by moving offshore, produc-ers would avoid many of the criticismsthat have been raised with respect to facil-ities established in coastal waters (see forexample, Belton et al. 2004). However, asthe need to develop regulations for mari-culture in the EEZ became recognized,many of the same criticisms raised by crit-ics of inshore mariculture operations wereextended to the offshore as well.

With the Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nationsreporting that world capture fisheriespeaked a decade or so ago (seewww.fao.org) while demand for fish andshellfish increases throughout the world,aquaculture is seen as the primary sourceof additional supplies. Worldwide, aqua-culture continues to grow, though FAOdata consistently show that freshwater fin-fish production dwarfs that from themarine environment at present.

Table 1. Open Ocean Aquaculture Symposia.

Titles Locations (Dates) References

Open Ocean Aquaculture Portland, Maine, USA (1996) Polk (1996)Open Ocean Aquaculture ‘97 Maui, Hawaii, USA (1997) Helsley (1998)Third International Conference on Open Ocean Aquaculture Corpus Christi, Texas, USA (1998) Stickney (1999)Open Ocean Aquaculture IV St. Andrews, New Brunswick, Canada (2001) Bridger and Costa-Pierce (2003)Farming the Deep Blue Limerick, Ireland (2004) www.eventznet.ie/ev/ac/bim/deepblue


Proponents of offshore aquaculture see theopen ocean as a highly desirable place toestablish operations, while opponents seemajor threats to the environment.

A properly designed and regulated per-mitting system should ensure that openocean aquaculture operates withoutinflicting environmental damage. Majorchallenges that continue to face the indus-try involve designing and deploying cagesthat can withstand storms, dealing withthe logistics of working many kilometersfrom land, and finding species that bringsufficiently high prices to overcome thelarge difference in costs associated withrearing fish in protected coastal waters asopposed to exposed offshore areas.

Much of the debate surrounding openocean aquaculture has been focused onexercising strict control over an industrythat has yet to be developed to any extent.The committee conducted a very informale-mail survey of companies known tocommittee members (approximately 30were contacted) to determine if there wasinterest within the commercial aquacul-ture community in moving into the openocean. Only seven responses wereobtained, so the survey cannot be consid-ered to have scientific credibility, nor wasit designed with scientific rigor in mind.The survey was revealing to the extentthat lack of a regulatory environment inthe U.S. EEZ was seen as an impedimentby respondents. No facility has as yet beenestablished in the U.S. EEZ and thereappears to be little interest in establishingsuch a facility in the absence of a regula-tory framework and permitting process.

Two responders indicated that expan-sion into open ocean aquaculture was acurrent priority for their companies. Oneof those two reported an interest ininstalling fish cages in federal waters,while the other reported an interest inworking in both state and federal waters.Among the five companies that indicatedthey were not interested in moving off-shore, two had a primary focus onfreshwater species, one said aquaculturewas ancillary to their activities, and tworeferred to issues associated with theuncertainty of the regulatory and leasingsituation.

In response to a question aboutwhether additional federal research fund-ing is needed to develop demonstrationsites, responses ranged from “no” to “possi-bly.” Additional comments on theregulatory situation were made and the

lack of sources of sufficient fingerlings forstocking cages (need for hatcheries) wascited as a major impediment. In responseto the final question in the survey thatasked respondents what they would like tosee in the way of a federal policy on openocean aquaculture, the following pointswere mentioned:

• The United States needs to developregulations and policies that makeinvesting in U.S. open ocean aquacul-ture more attractive than investing inother countries.

• Leases longer than 10 years should beavailable, as should long-term loanopportunities.

• There should be “one-stop shopping”for all federal and state permits.

• Regulations should be realistic andencourage investment in open oceanaquaculture.

• Incentives would not be needed if theproper regulatory environment were inplace.

• Permitting and regulatory constraintsneed to be reduced as incentives forinvestment in capital-intensive openocean aquaculture systems.

• Clear guidance on how oil and gas plat-forms can be converted to aquaculturesites needs to be developed.

• Permits should be closely monitored byNOAA Fisheries so poorly managedoperations can be improved or elimi-nated.

• Federal policy should be comprised ofclear rules, rapid decision making, andinclude a predictable process thatinvolves a fixed time frame.

Clearly, there is frustration with thelack of a regulatory framework and a clearpermitting process in federal waters. Inthose areas the states are much furtheralong. Recognition of that problem is notonly being voiced by those interested inopen ocean aquaculture, but also by gov-ernment, nongovernmental organizations,the research community, and others.

The “which comes first” situation withopen ocean aquaculture in the EEZ is notonly associated with permitting. The lackof marine hatchery infrastructure to sup-port the production of sufficient numbersof fingerlings to stock into cages to pro-vide a commercial-scale proof of conceptis a major issue. In addition, the engineer-ing of cages and mooring systems must bedeveloped to better protect stocks fromstorm damage and predators, and also to

maintain operational efficiency for feed-ing fish and cleaning the cages.

The committee recognizes that thereare open ocean aquaculture systems inexposed waters in other countries that areshowing commercial promise, though themajority of the activity continues to be inmoderately to fairly sheltered waters. Inaddition to having low labor costs and lessconcern about potential mariculture-related environmental problems in manyparts of the world, some countries providesubsidies and/or tax incentives to openocean aquaculture operations, all of whichput the United States at a competitive dis-advantage while the demand for seafoodby the American public continues toincrease.

RECOMMENDATIONS

We cannot know with any certaintywhether aquaculture in the U.S. EEZ willbecome a commercial reality to any signif-icant extent or even which species maybring high enough returns on investmentto entice investment in open ocean cul-ture operations. We do know that there isa need to test the concept in the U.S. EEZ.With that in mind, the committee hasdeveloped the following recommenda-tions.

1. Put open ocean aquaculture legislationon the fast track through Congress andencourage the Fishery ManagementCouncils to adopt amendments to theirmanagement plans that will provide apermitting framework in the absence ofbroader legislation.

2. Support the development of an Officeof Sustainable Aquaculture in NOAAthat would provide “one-stop shop-ping” for moving through theregulatory and permitting process.

3. Encourage the federal and state agen-cies that will be involved to signmemoranda of understanding (MOUs)with NOAA under which a smoothand efficient process for obtaining per-mits would be developed. Thoseagencies would include, but not be lim-ited to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Minerals Management Service, U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, the coastalstates (through their Coastal ZoneManagement Programs), and perhapsothers.

4. Develop a regulatory environment thatprotects native marine communities,native fisheries, and the environment


while not imposing unreasonable mon-itoring requirements in recognition ofthe fact that the first commercial facil-ities will be operating largely asresearch operations. Increasing the fre-quency and intensity of monitoring aswell as adding parameters to be moni-tored may be required as researchfacilities expand into commercial pro-duction.

5. Promote the establishment of commer-cial hatcheries in regions of thecountry where interest in open oceanaquaculture is strong and support thefunding of research on appropriatespecies of commercial value that mightbe produced in those hatcheries.

6. Expand NOAA’s aquaculture researchfunding and promote collaborationbetween university researchers andindustry in developing both openocean aquaculture facilities and thehatcheries and development of speciesrequired to stock the facilities.

These recommendations would supportthe first steps toward development of anopen ocean aquaculture industry thatwould be both economically and environ-mentally sustainable. As the industry

develops and data are gathered, regulators,producers, and researchers will be betterable to develop guidelines for speciesselection, stocking densities, facility foot-prints and distances between sites,environmental monitoring and reportingrequirements, and deal with other issuesthat may arise using the adaptive manage-ment approach.

REFERENCES CITED

Bardach, J. E. Editor. Sustainableaquaculture. John Wiley and Sons, NewYork.

Belton, B., M. Skladany, and J. Volpe.2004. Out of sight and out of mind: openocean aquaculture is a disaster waiting tohappen. Institute for Agriculture andTrade Policy, Minneapolis, Minnesota.Available at: www.iatp.org/iatp/library/admin/uploadedfiles/Out_of_Sight_and_Out_of_Mind_Open_Ocean_Aquacu.pdf.

Borgatti, R., and E. H. Buck. 2006. Openocean aquaculture. CongressionalResearch Service, Washington, DC.Available at: http://ncseonline.org/nle/crsreports/06apr/RL32694.pdf.

Bridger, C. J. Editor. 2004. Efforts todevelop a responsible offshoreaquaculture industry in the Gulf ofMexico: a compendium of offshoreaquaculture consortium research.Mississippi-Alabama Sea GrantConsortium, Ocean Springs, Mississippi.

Bridger, C. J., and B. A. Costa-Pierce.Editors. 2003. Open ocean aquaculture:from research to commercial reality.World Aquaculture Society, BatonRouge, Louisiana.

Cicin-Sain, B., S. M. Bunsick, J. Corbin,M. R. DeVoe, T. Eichenberg, J. Ewart,J. Firestone, K. Fletcher, H.Halvorson, T. MacDonald, R.Rayburn, R. Rheault and B. Thorne-Miller. 2005. Recommendations for anoperational framework for offshoreaquaculture in U.S. federal waters.Gerard J. Mangone Center for MarinePolicy, University of Delaware, Newark.Available at:http://darc.cms.udel.edu/sgeez/sgeez2final.pdf.

Costa-Pierce, B. Editor. 2002. Ecologicalaquaculture. Blackwell Science, Malden,Massachusetts.

Goldburg, R., and T. Triplett. 1997. Murkywaters: environmental effects ofaquaculture in the United States.

Environmental Defense Fund,Washington, DC.

Goldburg, R., M. Elliot, and R. Naylor.2001. Marine aquaculture in the UnitedStates. Pew Oceans Commission,Arlington, Virginia.

Helsley, C. 1998. Open OceanAquaculture ’97. Charting the future ofocean farming. Proceedings of aninternational conference. University ofHawaii Sea Grant College ProgramPublication #CP-98-08, Honolulu.

Jana, B., and C. Webster. Editors. 2003.Sustainable aquaculture: globalperspectives. Food Products Press,Binghamton, New York.

Naylor, R., R. Goldburg, H. Mooney, M.Beveridge, J. Clay, C. Folke, N.Kautsky, J. Lubchenco, J. Primaveraand M. Williams. 1998. Nature’ssubsidies on world fish supplies. Science282:883-884.

Naylor, R., R. Goldburg, J. Primavera, N.Kautsky, M. Beveridge, J. Clay, C.Folke, J. Lubchenco, H. Mooney, andM. Troell. 2000. Effects of aquacultureon world food supplies. Nature405:1017-1024.

Parametrix, Inc. 1990. Fish culture infloating net-pens. Final programmaticenvironmental impact statementprepared for the WashingtonDepartment of Fisheries, Olympia.

Polk, M. 1996. Open ocean aquaculture.Proceedings on an internationalconference, May 8-10, 1996. NewHampshire-Maine Sea Grant CollegeProgram Publication #UNHMP-CP-SG-96-9.

Stickney, R. 1997. Offshore mariculture.Pages 53-86 in J. E. Bardach, ed.Sustainable aquaculture. John Wiley andSons, New York.

Stickney, R., and J. McVey. 2002.Responsible marine aquaculture. CABIPublishing, Oxon, United Kingdom.

_____. 1999. Joining forces with industry.Proceedings of the Third InternationalConference on Open OceanAquaculture, May 10-15, 1998. TexasA&M University Sea Grant CollegeProgram Publication TAMU-SG-99-103, College Station.

U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. 2004.An ocean blueprint for the 21st century.U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy.Washington, D.C. Available atwww.oceancommission.gov.


The Web We Weave

COLUMN: DIRECTOR’S LINECOLUMN: DIRECTOR’S LINE

Gus RassamAFS Executive Director

Gus Rassam can be reachedat [email protected].

You may have noticed it recently—theAFS website (www.fisheries.org) has beenredone. The address and most of the con-tents are the same but almost everythingelse is not.

The primary motive behind the changewas to switch to a database structure thatallows changes be made efficiently, i.e., ina way that once a change is made once,there’d be no need to repeat the changein every linked page. And when you dealwith literally thousands of pages in a com-plex website such as ours, you canimagine the savings both in staff time andin the expediency of posting the changes.

As expected, the reactions have run thegamut from saying that the new site isgreat to saying it is lousy. The most criti-cism we received was related to the jobs

page, which we also expected, since thatis the most frequently visited part of ourwebsite. Most of those comments werequite to the point and we have alreadyimproved that area substantially, but thereis still a ways to go there.

We are gathering all the feedback weget, assimilating it, and making thechanges needed to satisfy most of the crit-ical reactions so far. But keep yourcomments coming and address them tome. I promise that we are taking them toheart.

Soon, by the way, we will have aMembers Only area on the website thatwill include features like access to theOnline Membership Directory, specificnews for membership, and current issuesof Fisheries magazine. Which is a round-

about way of announcing that the long-inactive online membership directoryfunctionality is back in place. It allows youto find information about fellow membersand colleagues. The new database alsoallows you to update your personal infor-mation such as address and e-mail directly,without the delays of sending a requestfor changes to [email protected].

For those who have renewed theirmembership or joined online: you shouldhave received an instantaneous confirma-tion of your order. More importantly, thefulfillment of your order, whether it is formembership renewals or journal subscrip-tions, will be much more rapid with thenew system in place.

As usual, I welcome all comments andsuggestions.


AANNNNUUAALL AAWWAARRDDSS

AFS 136TH ANNUAL MEETINGLAKE PLACID, NEW YORK

SEPTEMBER 2006

Carl Walters receives the AWARD OF EXCELLENCE from Chris Kohler.Walters, a professor at the Fisheries Centre, the University of BritishColumbia, is renowned for his work in fisheries stock assessment andecosystem modeling. He uses mathematical modeling and computersimulation techniques to improve understanding of the dynamics ofexploited marine, freshwater, and land-based ecosystems, and to find moreeffective methods of managing them.

Christopher Goddard receives the MERITORIOUS SERVICE AWARD from ChrisKohler. Goddard, executive director of the Great Lakes Fishery Commissionsince 1995, holds faculty appointments at the University of Michigan andMichigan State University. His dedicated service to AFS and fisheries scienceincludes serving as past president of the Canadian Aquatic Resources Sectionof AFS, and on the board of directors of AquaNet, the Governors AdvisoryPanel on Invasive Species, and the board for Michigan Sea Grant.

The Resource Evaluation and Assessment Division (READ) of the NortheastFisheries Science Center of the National Marine Fisheries Service at WoodsHole, represented by Fred Serchuk, receives the WILLIAM E. RICKERRESOURCE CONSERVATION AWARD from Chris Kohler. The READ providesthe scientific basis for Northeast fisheries management and has engaged in along-term effort to supply high quality scientific advice to fishery managerswho deal with chronic problems of bycatch and overfishing.

The Great Lakes Fish Health Committee (GLFHC), represented byWilliam Taylor, receives the PRESIDENT’S FISHERY CONSERVATIONAWARD from Chris Kohler. The award recognizes the collectiveaccomplishments of the fish health professionals, managers, andresearchers who have served on the committee since its inception in1973. The GLFHC developed principles and programs for preventingand containing serious fish diseases.

PHOTOS BY JIM CLAYTON

William J. Wilson receives the DISTINGUISHEDSERVICE AWARD from Chris Kohler. Wilson, aNOAA employee, is honored for hisdistinguished service, vision, leadership, andsuperb organizational skills during the 2005AFS Annual Meeting in Anchorage, Alaska.

Michael D. Porter, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation,receives the DISTINGUISHED SERVICE AWARDfrom Chris Kohler. Porter is acclaimed for hisongoing leadership in continuing educationtraining for AFS members in geographicinformation systems (GIS).

Joseph E. Hightower receives the EXCELLENCEIN FISHERIES EDUCATION AWARD from ChrisKohler. At the U.S. Geological Survey, NorthCarolina Cooperative Fish and WildlifeResearch Unit, North Carolina State University,Hightower is a tremendous educator, a first-rate scientist, and an active participant in AFS.His commitment to students is refreshing. Hispassion for learning and teaching is infectious.He provides high-quality classroom instruction,constantly updating his instructional materialsto include new advances in the field andmodifying his approach in response to studentsuggestions.


The CARL R. SULLIVAN FISHERY CONSERVATIONAWARD, “The Sully,” is awarded to C. Jeff Cederholm (posthumous) and accepted byhis wife, Katie, and daughter, Heidi. LarryDominguez (right) speaks about Cederholm’scontributions. Over the past decade, Cederholmwas instrumental in the development of streamsideprotection guidelines in a landmark statewideHabitat Conservation Plan. Recent accomplishmentsinclude the lead authorship of a chapter in a bookon wildlife habitat for Oregon State University Press,entitled: Pacific Salmon and Wildlife—EcologicalContexts, Relationships, and Implications forManagement. He assisted in the organization of aninternational symposium on salmon nutrient andecosystem health, held in Eugene, Oregon, in April2001. The Sully is presented to an individual ororganization for outstanding contributions to theconservation of fishery resources.

Eric E. Knudsen (not pictured), consulting fisheries scientist, received the Distinguished Serviceaward for his commitment, dedication, and focus while serving as program co-chair for therecord-breaking Anchorage 2005 Annual Meeting, his dedicated service while serving aspresident of the Western Division, and his consistent and continuous efforts to create qualityscience publications through AFS books and journals.

DISTINGUISHED SERVICE AWARDS


The East Carolina University Student Subunit (ECU AFS), represented by Co-Presidents Kelly Register and Rebecca Deehr, and fellow ECU AFSmembers, receives the OUTSTANDING STUDENT SUBUNIT AWARD from Chris Kohler. ECU AFS members help plan, host, speak at, give poster talksat, and attend a large number of professional meeetings including the International Dogfish Symposium, Estuarine Research Federation, SoutheasternAssociation of Fish and Wildllife Agencies Meeting Fifth Annual AFS Student Colloquium, AFS-Tidewater Meeting, and the AFS Annual Meetings.

Ralph Manns, Fishing Information Services,receives the EXCELLENCE IN PUBLICOUTREACH AWARD from Chris Kohler. Sincereceiving a M.S. in fisheries science fromSouthwest Texas State University 25 yearsago, Manns has worked tirelessly todisseminate fishery science breakthroughs toanglers. He has written widely in fishingmagazines, including dozens of features andhundreds of short articles for In-FishermanMagazine, as well as columns for severalother publications.

Jesse Trushenski receives runners-up plaquefor the J. FRANCES ALLEN SCHOLARSHIP fromChris Kohler. Trushenski is a Ph.D. candidateand studies the joint influence ofmicronutrients and stress on innate immunityand metabolism of hybrid striped bass withKohler at the Aquaculture Center at SouthernIllinois University.

Allen Scholarship winner Virginia Shervette(not pictured) is a Ph.D. candidate at TexasA&M University and studies wildlife andfisheries sciences with Frances Gelwick. Herdissertation focuses on comparing andcontrasting the role habitats play in communitystructure, growth, and predator/preyinteractions of estuarine nekton species.

OUTSTANDING CHAPTER AWARDSThe Oregon Chapter, represented by Robert Hughes (top center photo), and the Wisconsin Chapter,

represented by Joe Hennessy and Justine Hasz (top right), receive large (> 100 members) chapterOUTSTANDING CHAPTER AWARDS from Chris Kohler. The Tennessee Chapter, represented by FredHeitman and fellow Chapter members, receives the small (<100 members) chapter OUTSTANDINGCHAPTER AWARD from Chris Kohler.

The Oregon Chapter is recognized for support of the Hutton Junior Fisheries Biology Program, theirnewsletter, Piscatorial Press, three continuing education workshops, and many other excellent activities.The Wisconsin Chapter is recognized for helping to host the 2007 Annual Midwest Fisheries andWildlife Conference, their web site, award-winning newsletter, and actively voicing support for itsmission to improve conservation and sustainability of fishery resources. The Tennessee Chapter strives toprotect and enhance aquatic resources and recognize achievements with awards to scientists, students,and “friends.“ The Chapter also sells tee shirts that promote awareness of Tennessee fishes.


GoldenMembership

Awardsrecognize individuals

who have been AFS members for

50 years.

The class of 1956 includes:

Robert L. BurgnerAlbert C. JonesFred P. Meyer

Spencer H. SmithBruce B. Collette

William R. NicholsonHenry A. Regier

David W. Robinson

AFS/SEA GRANT OUTSTANDINGSTUDENT PAPER AWARD WINNERS

Spatio-temporal analyses of loggerhead seaturtle interactions with pelagic fisheries byBeth Gardner (left) wins the AFS/SEA GRANTOUTSTANDING STUDENT PAPER AWARD,which is presented by Chris Kohler. Gardnerattends Cornell University.

Growth and recruitment rates of juvenile bluecrabs in Chesapeake Bay by Brandon J.Puckett, University of Maryland, Center forEnvironmental Science won AFS/SEA GRANTOUTSTANDING STUDENT PAPER AWARD.

HONORABLE MENTIONS

Interactive effects of flood frequency andfishes on ecosystem structure and function byBrian Bellgraph, Montana State University

Resource overlap between sauger and walleyein the Missouri River, Montana: Implications fordeclining sauger populations by KatieBertrand, Kansas State University.

BEST PAPER AWARDS

Optimizing Trout Farm Effluent Treatment byStabilizing Trout Feces: A Field Trial byAlexander Brinker (left), Wolfgang Koppe, andRoland Rösch wins BEST PAPER IN THENORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OFAQUACULTURE (67:244–258).

Seasonal Fishery Dynamics of a PreviouslyUnexploited Rainbow Trout Population withContrasts to Established Fisheries by Brett T.van Poorten and John R. Post won theMERCER PATRIARCHE AWARD FOR THEBEST PAPER IN THE NORTH AMERICANJOURNAL OF FISHERIES MANAGEMENT(25:329-345).

Across-Species Comparisons of Spatial Scalesof Environmental Effects on Survival Rates ofNortheast Pacific Salmon FisheriesManagement by Brian J. Pyper, Franz J.Mueter, and Randall M. Peterman won theROBERT L. KENDALL BEST PAPER INTRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICANFISHERIES SOCIETY (134:86–104).

DNA Vaccination against Channel Catfish VirusResults in Minimal Immune Response and IsNot Efficacious against Challenge by HeatherHarbottle, Karen P. Plant, and Ronald L. Thunewon the BEST PAPER IN THE JOURNAL OFAQUATIC ANIMAL HEALTH (17:251–262).

STUDENT WRITING CONTESTWinning papers wil be published in an upcomingissue of Fisheries. The award recognizes studentswho do an excellent job communicating the value offisheries research to the general public.

Big bass in rivers? You're kidding me! by AndrewRypel (not pictured) won first place in the STUDENTWRITING CONTEST. Rypel attends the University ofAlabama.

Mosquito-Eating Machine or Native SpeciesMonster? Assessing the Impacts of WesternMosquitofish Stockings in Indiana Waters by RebeccaZeiber (left) receives the second place award fromChris Kohler. Zeiber attends Purdue University.

Effects of gravel mining on detectionprobabilities for selected Mobile River Basinfishes by Cari-Ann Hayer receives the BESTSTUDENT POSTER AWARD from Chris Kohlerfor her poster, which was presented at the2005 AFS Annual Meeting in Anchorage,Alaska. Hayer attends Auburn University.

Does grass bed planting stimulate the foodweb and juvenile bass abundance in adrawdown reservoir? by Donald Ratcliffreceives Honorable Mention. Ratcliff attendsUtah State University.


The JOHN E. SKINNER MEMORIAL FUND providesmonetary travel awards for deserving graduatestudents or exceptional undergraduate students toattend the AFS Annual Meeting. The winners are:

WINNERSMichael Bailey, University of MaineAndrew Carlson, University of WyomingBart Durham, Texas Tech University

Janice Kerns, Tennessee Tech UniversityThomas Lang, University of Arkansas at Pine BluffHeidi Lewis, Southern Illinois University CarbondaleKathy Mills, Cornell UniversityQuinton Phelps, South Dakota State UniversityMark Rogers, University of FloridaJesse Trushenski, Southern Illinois UniversityRebecca Zeiber, Purdue University

HONORABLE MENTIONS:Benjamin Ciotti, University of DelawareRobin DeBruyne, Central Michigan UniversityDustin Edwards, University of ConnecticutDavid Rowe, Iowa State UniversityWilliam Smith, University of North Carolina

The AFS Past Presidents Luncheon honored the following past and future AFS presidents: (front row) Christine M. Moffitt, Richard A. Ryder, StanleyA. Moberly, and Fred Harris; (middle row) Kenneth L. Beal, Mary Fabrizio, Willliam W. Taylor, Charles C. Coutant, Ira Adelman, William Franzin, andDonald Jackson; and (back row) Jack Wingate, Robert F. Carline, Jennifer Nielsen, Barbara Knuth, and Christopher Kohler.


Ed Mills, Ed Woltmann, Chris Kohler, Douglas Stang, and Shaun Keeler display the Resolution of Appreciation to Hosts for the Annual Meeting ofthe American Fisheries Society.

“...Now, therefore, be it resolved that the membership of the American Fisheries Society having enjoyed the hospitality of Lake

Placid, extends its hearty appreciation and thanks to our hosts, the New York Chapter of the AFS and the New York State

Department of Environmental Conservation; to the General Chair Ed Woltmann and his Planning Committee; to Program

committee Co-chairs Douglas Stang and Ed Mills; and to the Program Poster Committee Chair Shaun Keeler.”

FISHERIES MANAGEMENT SECTIONHall of ExcellenceWayne Hubert Bob Carline Award of MeritFred JannsenConservation Achievement AwardGreat Lakes Fishery CommissionMissouri River Natural

Resources CouncilAward of ExcellenceJerry Rasmussen

EDUCATION SECTIONCertificate of Appreciation for

editing and producing theSecond Edition of The AFSGuide to Fisheries EmploymentDavid Hewitt

ESTUARIES SECTIONNancy Foster Habitat

Conservation AwardElliott Norse

Student Travel AwardBernice Bediako, Bradly Trumbo,

Benjamin Ciotti and William Smith

FISH CULTURE SECTIONStudent Travel AwardJesse TrushenskiNAJA Most Significant Paper 2005 WinnerOptimizing Trout Farm Effluent

Treatment by Stabilizing Trout Feces: A Field Trial by Alexander Brinker, Wolfgang Koppe, and Roland Rosch

Honorable MentionsEffect of Oxygen Management

on Culture Performance of Channel Catfish in Earthen Ponds by Eugene Torrans

Pond Production and Fatty Acid Profiles of Fillets of Channel Catfish Reared on Diets with Different

Protein Sources by R. L. Hedrick, T. J. Popma, and D. Davis

GENETICS SECTIONJames E. Wright AwardMelinda R. Baerwald and

Molly R. Stephens (co-winners)Stevan Phelps Memorial AwardAnthony J. Gharrett, Andrew P.

Matala, Eric L. Peterson, Andrew K. Gray, Zhouzhou Li, and Jonathan Heifetz,

MARINE FISHES SECTIONOscar E. Sette AwardKenneth Sherman

SOCIOECONOMICS SECTIONStephen Weithman AwardKathy Mills

CCoonnggrraattuullaattiioonnss ttoo WWiinnnneerrss ooff 22000066 AAFFSS SSeeccttiioonn AAwwaarrddssThe following AFS Sections announced award winners at the Annual Meeting in Lake Placid, New York:


See more job listings at www.fisheries.org; click on Calendar.See more job listings at www.fisheries.org; click on Calendar.

CALENDAR:2006 FISHERIES EVENTSCALENDAR:2006 FISHERIES EVENTS

Dec 3-6—67th Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference,

Omaha, NE. See www.midwest2006.org. Contact Mark

Porath, [email protected], 402/471-7651.

Dec 4-6—Pacific Northwest Fish Culture Conference,

Portland, OR. See www.fws.gov/nwfcc2006. Contact Doug

Olson, [email protected], 360/604-2500.

Dec 9-13—Third National Conference on Coastal and

Estuarine Habitat Restoration: Forging the National

Imperative—Restore America's Estuaries, New Orleans, LA.

See www.estuaries.org/conference. Contact Kristin Hoelting,

[email protected], 206/624-9100.

Dec 11-15—American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting,

San Francisco, CA. See www.agu.org/meetings/fm06/

?content=search.

Dec 15-19—Ninth Biennial Conference of the International

Society for Ecological Economics, Delhi, India. See

www.ISSE2006.com.

2007

Jan 7-9—Coolwater Fish Culture Workshop, Allamuchy, NJ.

Contact [email protected].

Jan 8-12—Western Section of the Wildlife Society’s

Natural Resources Communication Workshop, Chico, CA.

Contact Jon Hooper, [email protected], 530/898-6557.

Jan 11-12—Using Acoustic Tags to Track Fish Course,

Seattle Washington. See www.HTIsonar.com. Contact Caroline

Mercado, [email protected].

Jan 18-19—Hydrocoustics for Fisheries Assessment, Seattle

Washington. See www.HTIsonar.com. Contact Caroline

Mercado, [email protected].

Feb 1-2—National Council for Science and theEnvironment Seventh National Council for Science, Policy,and Environment, Washington, DC. See www.NCSEonline.org.Contact conference [email protected].

Feb 4-9—ASLO Aquatic Sciences Meeting, Santa Fe, NM. Seeaslo.org/meetings/santafe2007/. Contact Helen Lemay [email protected], 800/929-2756.

Feb 6-9—Symposium on the Sustainability of the Arctic-Yukon-Kuskokwim Salmon Fisheries, Anchorage Alaska. Seewww.aykssi.org/prod/index.htm. Contact Sherri Pristash,[email protected], 907-479-5141.

Feb 8-10—Evolutionary Change in Human-alteredEnvironments: An International Summit to TranslateScience into Policy, Los Angeles, CA. Seewww.ioe.ucla.edu/ctr/ioesymposium. html.

Feb 8-11—Southern Division of the AmericanFisheries Society and Tennessee Chapter of AFS,

Memphis, TN. See www.sdafs.org/meetings/2006.

Feb 11-14—Arabian Seas International Conference onScience and Technology of Aquaculture, Fisheries, andOceanography, Kuwait. See www.stafo.edu.kw (underconstruction). Contact Suliman Almattar, (+965) 5711293.

Feb 13-15—American Institute of Fishery ResearchBiologists Symposium: The Future of Fishery Science inNorth America, Seattle, WA. See www.aifrb.org.

Feb 18-23—Sixth International Symposium onEcohydraulics, New Zealand. See

www.conference.co.nz/ecohydraulics2007. (AFS membersreceive a 10% registration discount.) Contact Rachel Cook,[email protected].

Feb 26-Mar 2—98th Annual National ShellfisheriesAssociation Meeting, San Antonio, TX. Seewww.was.org/meetings/ConferenceInfo.asp?MeetingCode=AQ2007.


Mar 7-10—AFS Midyear Governing Board Meeting,Atlanta, GA. Contact Sharon Smith, [email protected],

301/897-8616 x230.

Mar 7-10—25th Annual Salmonid Restoration Conference,Santa Rosa, CA. Contact 707/923-7501.

Mar 12-15—International Symposium on Tuna and Pelagicfish Stock Assessments and Management, Shanghai, China.See www.marine.maine.edu. Contact Yong Chen,[email protected], 207/581-4303.

Apr 3-5—Pathways to Resilience: Sustaining Pacific Salmonin a Changing World, Oregon. Seewww.Oregonstate.edu/conferences/resilience/. [email protected].

Apr 22-25—63rd Northeast Fish and WildlifeConference, Groton, CT. See www.neafwa.org.

May 14-16—New Strategies for Urban Natural Resources:Integrating Wildlife, Fisheries, Forestry, and Planning,Chicago, IL. See www.informalearning.com/wildlife.

May 24-27—Aquarama 2007: Tenth InternationalAquarium Fish and Accessories Exhibition and Conference,Singapore, www.aquarama.com.sg.

May 28-Jun 1—Human and Climate Forcing of ZooplanktonPopulations, Hiroshima, Japan. Seewww.pices.int/meetings/international_symposia/2007_symposia/4th_Zooplankton/4th_Zoopla.aspx.

Jun 7-9—15th International Conference on EnvironmentalBioindicators, Kowloon, Hong Kong. Seewww.InformaLearning.com/EBI. Contact James Newman,[email protected].

Jun 6-9—Fourth North American ReservoirSymposium, Atlanta, GA. See www.sdafs.org.

Jun 17-21—Seventh Conference on Fish Telemetry Held inEurope, Silkeborg, Denmark. See www.fishtelemetry.eu/.

Jun 17-23—Seventh Symposium on Fish Immunology,Stirling, Scotland. See www.noffi.org/sotland2007.

Jun 18-21—Second International Symposium onDiadromous Fishes: Challenges for Diadromous Fishes

in a Dynamic Global Environment, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.See www.anacat.ca. Contact Alex Haro, [email protected].

Jun 26-29—ICES/PICES Conference for Early CareerScientists: New Frontiers in Marine Science, Baltimore, MD.See www.pices.int/newfrontiers.aspx.

Jul 11-16—American Society of Ichthyologists andHerpetologists Annual Conference, St. Louis, Missouri.

Sep 2-6—American Fisheries Society 137th AnnualMeeting, San Francisco, CA. See www.fisheries.org.

Oct 9-12—International Symposium: Wild Trout IX, WestYellowstone, MT. www.wildtroutsymposium.com/. Contact DirkMiller, [email protected], 307/777-4556.

2008

Feb 28-Mar 2—Southern Division of the AmericanFisheries Society and West Virginia Chapter of AFS,

Wheeling, WV. See www.sdafs/org/meetings.

Aug 17-21—American Fisheries Society 138thAnnual Meeting, Ottawa, Ontario.

Oct 5-9—Pathways to Success 2008 Conference:Integrating Human Dimensions into Fisheries and Wildlife,Estes Park, CO. See www.warnercnr.colostate.edu/nrrt/hdfw/partners.html. Contact [email protected].

2009

Aug 30-Sep 3—American Fisheries Society 139thAnnual Meeting, Nashville, TN.

To submit an event,send event name, dates,

city, state/province, and contact informationto [email protected].

To submit an event,send event name, dates,

city, state/province, and contact informationto [email protected].


ECOLOGICAL POLICY[Perspective] Axioms of Ecological Policy.Robert T. Lackey. 31(6):286-290.

[Director’s Line] The Ocean Action Plan: WhatIs It? Where Is It Going? Gus Rassam.31(11):556.

ECONOMIC GROWTH AND FISHERIES[Fisheries Forum] Economic Growth, FishConservation, and the AFS: Conclusion to aForum or Beginning of a Movement? BrianCzech, Shawn K. Alam, Paul A. Angermeier,Stephen M. Coghlan, Gordon F. Hartman, LisiKrall, Jerry V. Mead, Tom G. Northcote, Phil Pister,Kelly M. Reed, C. Alwyn Rose, Julie A. Thompson,and Patricia F. Thompson. 31(1):40-43.

[Report: Resource Policy Committee] EconomicGrowth and Fish Conservation. Tom Bigford,Kim Hyatt, Tracy Dobson, Victoria Poage, LouReynolds, Brian Czech, Bob Hughes, JohnMeldrim, Paul Angermeier, Bob Gray, JohnWhitehead, Leroy Hushak, and Frank Lupi.31(8):404-409.

EDUCATIONA Photo-based Computer System forIdentifying Wisconsin Fishes. John Lyons, PaulHanson, and Elizabeth White. 31(6):269-275.

ENDANGERED SPECIESMaine’s Diadromous Fish Community: Past,Present, and Implications for Atlantic SalmonRecovery. Rory Saunders, Michael A. Hachey,and Clem W. Fay. 31(11):537-547.

[Fisheries Forum] Recovery ManagementAgreements Offer Alternative to ContinuingESA Listings. Dale D. Goble and J. Michael Scott.31(1):35-36.

FISH CULTUREToward Sustainable Open OceanAquaculture in the United States. Robert R.Stickney, Barry Costa-Pierce, Donald M. Baltz,Mark Drawbridge, Churchill Grimes, StephenPhillips and D. LaDon Swann. 31(12):607-610.

FISH HABITATBuilding Science and Accountability intoCommunity-based Restoration: Can a NewFunding Approach Facilitate Effective andAccountable Restoration? Todd Reeve, JimLichatowich, William Towey, and Angus Duncan.31(1):17-24.

Fish Community and Food Web Responses toa Whole-lake Removal of Coarse WoodyHabitat. Greg G. Sass, James F. Kitchell, StephenR. Carpenter, Thomas R. Hrabik, Anna E.Marburg, and Monica G. Turner. 31(7):321-330.

[Director’s Line] Fish Habitat—Now Is the Time.

Gus Rassam. 31(5):239.

[Guest Director’s Line] National FishHabitat Action Plan—A Call toAction. Virgil Moore. 31(6):292.

Quantifying Submerged AquaticVegetation Using AerialPhotograph Interpretation:Application in Studies AssessingFish Habitat in FreshwaterEcosystems. D.G. Fitzgerald, B. Zhu,S.B. Hoskins, D.E. Haddad, K.N. Green,L.G. Rudstam, and E.L. Mills. 31(2):61-73.

The Wyoming Habitat AssessmentMethodology (WHAM): ASystematic Approach to EvaluatingWatershed Conditions and Stream Habitat.Michael C. Quist, Wayne A. Hubert, MarkFowden, Steven W. Wolff, and Michael R. Bower.31(2):75-81.

FISH HEALTHZero Withdrawal Anesthetic for All Finfishand Shellfish: Needs and Candidates. RosalieSchnick. 31(3):122-126.

FISHERIES HISTORY[Perspective] Assessment of the SouthernRange Limit of North American CohoSalmon: Difficulties in Establishing NaturalRange Boundaries. V.W. Kaczynski and FabianAlvarado. 31(8):374-391.

The Early History of Fisheries Managementin Michigan. W.C. Latta. 31(5):230-234.

[Essay] The Origin of Fulton’s ConditionFactor—Setting the Record Straight. RichardD.M. Nash, Antonio H. Valencia, and Audrey J.Geffen. 31(5):236-238.

The Public Sector Role in the Establishmentof Grass Carp in the United States. Andrew J.Mitchell and Anita M. Kelly. 31(3):113-121.

FISHERIES MANAGEMENT[Essay] Diversifying Trout Fishing Opportunityin Wyoming: History, Challenges, andGuidelines. Robert W. Wiley. 31(11):548-553.

[Director’s Line] Ecosystem FisheriesManagement and Data Gaps in the System.Gus Rassam. 31(10):508.

Impending Trade Suspensions of CaribbeanQueen Conch under CITES: A Case Study onFishery Impacts and Potential for StockRecovery. Charles A. Acosta. 31(12):601-606.

[Essay] Matters of Consequence: Looking atMarine Fisheries Management throughLeopold’s Lens. Karen Hyun. 31(4):188-189.

[Guest Director’s Line] Partnerships for aCommon Purpose: Cooperative FisheriesResearch and Management. Alesia Read.31(3):130-132.

[Fisheries Forum] Policy Options to Reverse the

Decline of Wild Pacific Salmon. Robert T.Lackey, Denise H. Lach, and Sally L. Duncan.31(6):344-351.

A Review of the Status of Atlantic Sturgeonin Canada, with Comparisons to Populationsin the United States and Europe. Michael J.Dadswell. 31(5):218-229.

[Perspective] Routine Use of Sterile Fish inSalmonid Sport Fisheries: Are We There Yet?Joseph R. Kozfkay, Jeffrey C. Dillon, and Daniel J.Schill. 31(8):392-401.

Uncertainty and the Use of Network Analysisfor Ecosystem-based Fishery Management.James K. Dame and Robert R. Christian.31(7):331-341.

[Essay] Why “Separating Science andManagement” Confuses the Debate overManagement Reform in U.S. Fisheries. BethC. Bryant and Dan Huppert. 31(3):127-129.

FISHERIES RESEARCHAccounting for Multilevel Data Structures inFisheries Data Using Mixed Models. TylerWagner, Daniel B. Hayes, and Mary T. Bremigan.31(4):180-187.

Listening to Fish: Applications of PassiveAcoustics to Fisheries Science. Rodney A.Rountree, R. Grant Gilmore, Clifford A. Goudey,Anthony D. Hawkins, Joseph J. Luczkovich, andDavid A. Mann. 31(9):433-446.

Remote Monitoring of Fish in Small Streams:A Unified Approach Using PIT Tags. GayleBarbin Zydlewski, Gregg Horton, Todd Dubreuil,Benjamin Letcher, Sean Casey, and JosephZydlewski. 31(10):492-506.

Seeing the Elephant: Importance of Spatialand Temporal Coverage in a Large-scaleVolunteer-based Program to MonitorHorseshoe Crabs. David R. Smith and Stewart F.Michels. 31(10):485-491.

HUMAN DIMENSIONSCompliance with Sport Fishery Regulationsin Minnesota as Related to RegulationAwareness. Kevin S. Page and Paul Radomski.31(4):166-178.

Evaluating the Human—as well as the

VOLUME 31

FISHERIES ANNUAL INDEX2006 VOLUME 31


Biological—Objectives of CooperativeFisheries Research. Flaxen D.L. Conway andCarrie Pomeroy. 31(9):447-454.

[Perspective] Lobster Resource Failure in LongIsland Sound, Fisheries Extension, andLitigation. Nancy C. Balcom and Antoinette O.Clemetson. 31(6):276-284.

INTRODUCED SPECIESForecasting Potential Distributions ofNonindigenous Species with a GeneticAlgorithm. John M. Drake and David M. Lodge.31(1):9-16.

NAMES OF FISHES[Errata] Corrections to Common and ScientificNames of Fishes from the United States,Canada, and Mexico, Sixth Edition. Joseph S.Nelson, Hector Espinosa-Perez, Lloyd T. Findley,Carter R. Gilbert, Robert N. Lea, Nicholas E.Mandrak, and James D. Williams. 31(3):138-140.

NATURAL DISASTERS[President’s Hook] After the Storms: An AFSAction Plan Gets Underway. Christopher C.Kohler. 31(5):212.

[Guest Director’s Line] Tsunami Relief FundMaking an Impact. Doug Beard, Pedro Bueno,and Jeff Fisher. 31(4):190.

SOCIETY AND PROFESSIONALISSUES[Report: Hutton Program] 2005 Hutton JuniorFisheries Biology Program. Danielle Hawkins.31(2):82.

[Report: Hutton Program] 2006 Hutton JuniorFisheries Biology Program. Danielle Hawkins.31(12):624-625.

American Fisheries Society 2006 Report.31(8):411-418.

[President’s Hook] AFS Annual Meetings:Where the Lure Strikes the Water. ChristopherC. Kohler. 31(8):368.

[Director’s Line] AFS Unit Activities. Gus Rassam.31(6):342.

[President’s Hook] The American FisheriesSociety: What Does Our Name Mean?Christopher C. Kohler. 31(4):160.

The Center for Independent Experts: TheNational External Peer Review Program ofNOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service.Stephen K. Brown, Manoj Shivlani, David Die,David B. Sampson, and Tina A. Ting. 31(12):590-600.

[President’s Hook] Coming Soon: the FifthWorld Fisheries Congress in Yokohama,Japan. Christopher C. Kohler. 31(6):264.

[Report: Best Science Committee] Defining andImplementing Best Available Science forFisheries and Environmental Science, Policy,and Management. P.J. Sullivan, J.M. Acheson,P.L. Angermeier, T. Faast, J. Flemma, C.M. Jones,E.E. Knudsen, T.J. Minello, D.H. Secor, R.Wunderlich, and B.A. Zanetell. 31(9):460-465.

[President’s Hook] Excerpts from an Interviewwith Larry Kingfish Live. Christopher C. Kohler.31(7):316.

[President’s Hook] Fair and Good Governancein AFS. Jennifer Nielsen. 31(11):532.

[Essay] Faith-based Fisheries. Ray Hilborn.31(11):554-555.

[Guest Director’s Line] Fisheries 30thAnniversary. Beth Beard. 31(1):26.

[Report: Hutton Program] Hutton ScholarHonored at Rise to the Future Awards.Danielle Hawkins. 31(6):302.

[Report: Hutton Program] A Hutton Student’sSummer Experience. Marjorie Tahbone.31(10):533-523.

[Report: Annual Meeting] Lake Placid: A VeryIn-tents Annual Meeting. Beth Beard.31(11):557-563.

[President’s Hook] Looking Downstream andDowncurrent: Addressing Complexity andUnintended Consequences in Fish andFisheries. Jennifer L. Nielsen. 31(9):428.

Meet a Young Professional: Letise Houser.31(11):570.

[Report: Hutton Program] Mentoring the NextGeneration—Growing a Viable andSustainable Population of Fisheries Experts.Keith Wolf. 31(10):523.

[Fisheries Forum] New Terminology forProportional Stock Density (PSD) andRelative Stock Density (RSD): ProportionalSize Structure (PSS). Christopher S. Guy, RobertM. Neumann, and David W. Willis. 31(2):86-87.

[Director’s Line] Our Students, Our Lifeline. GusRassam. 31(8):402.

[Director’s Line] Peer Review and ScientificSocieties. Gus Rassam and Jessica Geubtner.31(2):83.

[President’s Hook] Publish or Perish—APowerful Engine Driving your ProfessionalSociety. Christopher C. Kohler. 31(3):108.

[Fisheries Forum] Society Publishers ShouldTake a Closer Look at Open Access. Linda Eells.31(6):295-297.

[President’s Hook] Thoughts from Kansas.Jennifer Nielsen. 31(10):480, 514-515.

[President’s Hook] Wanted: Highly SkilledIndividuals to Manage and Conserve ourFishery Resources. Christopher C. Kohler.31(1):4.

[President’s Hook] Water, Water Everywhere,But Where Are the Fish? Christopher C. Kohler.31(2):56.

[Guest Director’s Line] The Wildlife Society:New Vision, Directions, and Opportunities.Michael Hutchins. 31(9):455-456.

[Report: World Council of Fisheries Societies] AFSand Other Fisheries Society Leaders Convenein Kochi, Japan. Barbara Knuth. 31(5):252.

STUDENT ARTICLES[Student Writing Contest] First Place: That’s OneHot Striper: How a North Carolina ReservoirFishery Is Exceeding Expectations. Lori Davias.31(2):93.

[Student Writing Contest] Second Place: DoAmerican Shad Grow on Trees? LinkingForests with the Life History of a MarineFish. Joel C. Hoffman. 31(2):94.

[Students’ Angle] Preparing for andSucceeding in a Career in Fisheries: A How-toGuide. David A. Hewitt. 31(7):352-353.

[Students’ Angle] Tales of a Novice-run BassTournament. Brad Trumbo. 31(11):566-567.


376 pagesList price: $69AFS member price: $48 Item number 540.51PPublished December 2006

American Fisheries SocietyATTN: Orders Department1650 Bluegrass ParkwayAlpharetta, GA 30004Phone: 678-366-1411Fax: 770-442-9742Online: www.fisheries.org (click on “Bookstore”)

Hudson River Fishesand their Environment

John Waldman, Karin Limburg, and David Strayer, editors

The Hudson River is one of the most scientifically-studiedrivers in the world. This volume contains new findings aboutthe ecological and environmental workings of the Hudsonand the effects on fishes.

Chapter authors present important new findings, including:

• a review of the hydrodynamics and physical and chemicalconditions in the estuary;

• the impact of power plants on pelagic fish;

• the effects of pollution, climate, and nonnative plants andanimals on the Hudson’s fishes;

• the importance of tributaries for some species; and

• the impact of human activities, such as angling andchanging land use, on fish populations.


PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Hutton Junior Fisheries BiologyProgram is a summer mentoring programfor high school students sponsored by theAmerican Fisheries Society (AFS). The princi-pal goal of the program is to stimulateinterest in careers in fisheries science andmanagement among groups underrepre-sented in the fisheries professions, includingminorities and women. Application to theprogram is open to all current sophomore,junior, and senior high school studentsregardless of race, creed, or gender.Because the program seeks to increasediversity within the fisheries professions,preference is given to qualified women andminority applicants.

Students selected for the program arematched with mentor professionals andenjoy an eight-week, hands-on fisheries sci-ence experience in a marine and/orfreshwater setting. Assignments are madewith participating organizations within rea-sonable commuting distance from thestudents. Each student receives a $3,000scholarship and a complimentary studentmembership in AFS.

2006 PROGRAM

Selection for the program is more com-petitive each year. From 266 eligible studentapplications, the Hutton Evaluation Panelselected 56 students for the Class of 2006.The students were matched with profes-sional mentors in state and federalagencies, at universities, tribal facilities, andprivate organizations throughout 29 U.S.states and Canada.

At the end of the summer, students andmentors submit a final report to AFS evalu-ating their experience, their mentor orstudent, and the program. The studentsrespond to questions about their futureeducation and career plans. The immediatesuccess of the program is defined by thenumber of students who make a positivestatement in their final reports about their

experience and whether or not they plan tostudy or are considering the study of fish-eries or a related field when they entercollege. Of the 56 students in the Class of2006:

22 are currently enrolled in college, and of those students:

15 are studying fisheries or biology;

1 is studying environmental engineering

2 are studying another science;

2 are undecided on a major, but are considering fisheries or biology as anoption;

2 are studying a related non-science;

0 are studying an unrelated field.

33 are still in high school, and of those students:

15 plan to study fisheries or biology when they enter college;

2 plan to study environmental science;

1 plans to study another science;

14 are undecided on a major, but are considering fisheries or biology as an option;

0 plan to study an unrelated field;

1 did not respond to the question.

These reports verified that participationsignificantly benefits students in manyways. All of the students had the experi-ence of working in a professional settingand learning what is required to be success-ful in that environment. They learned aboutfisheries issues in their local area and theimportance of conservation to the future ofthe resource.

SURVEYS

AFS surveys the parents of the currentclass for their evaluation of the programand suggestions for improvement. A surveyof the parents of the Class of 2006 receiveda good response with 31 completed surveysreceived to date. All of the responses werevery positive and included evaluations ofthe program and the benefits it provides to

Danielle HawkinsHawkins is the Hutton Program

Coordinator and can be reachedat [email protected] or

301/897-8616 ext. 213.

REPORT: 2006 HUTTON JUNIORFISHERIES BIOLOGY PROGRAM

Learn more about the Hutton Program at www.fisheries.org; click on Hutton Program.


students. The most commonly repeatedsuggestion for improvement was to makethe program more widely available withmore publicity and increased funding.

The long-term results of the programwill be monitored by an annual survey ofHutton alumni for a period of 10 years todetermine how their experience hasaffected their educational plans and theirultimate career choice. As students are justbeginning to graduate from college, thetrue success of the program will soon revealitself. Ultimately, success will be measuredby the number of minority and femaleHutton participants who choose a career infisheries science or natural resource man-agement.

AFS spent several months conductingthe 2006 survey of the 245 students whoparticipated in the Hutton Program in theclasses of 2001–2006. It was completed inOctober 2006 with 156 responses, generat-ing a 64% response rate. According to thesurvey results:

121(78%) are studying or consideringstudying fisheries, biology, or environ-mental science,

2 (1%) are working in fisheriesor biology,

2 (1%) are studying or planningto study related non-sciences,

8 (5%) are studying or planningto study other sciences, and

22 (14%) are studying, planningto study, or working in anunrelated field (see graph onfacing page).

In addition to fields of study,the survey also addressed publications,scholarships, and other honors, and fish-eries-related work. A number of Huttonscholars reported that they have publishedmaterial since their participation in the pro-gram. Even more alumni reported that theyhave received scholarships or have gone onto continue their work in the fisheries field,often working with their mentors’ organiza-tions.

OVERSIGHT AND EVALUATION

The Hutton Program Committee pro-vides oversight and evaluation of theHutton Junior Fisheries Biology Program.

This is a special AFS committee composedof AFS members appointed by the Society’spresident.

PARTNERS

The 2006 Hutton Program would nothave been possible without the financialsupport from the National Fish and WildlifeFoundation, NOAA Fisheries, USDA ForestService, U.S. Bureau of Land Management,U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, AlaskaDepartment of Fish and Wildlife/Sport FishDivision, North Carolina Wildlife ResourcesCommission, and the WisconsinDepartment of Natural Resources. ManyAFS Units also contributed to this year’sprogram, including the North Central andNortheastern Divisions; the Michigan,Minnesota, New York, and North CarolinaChapters; and many AFS members.

LOOKING FORWARD

Some Hutton alumni have already com-pleted undergraduate degrees. In the nearfuture, we expect many of these Huttonalumni to not only begin filling positionsthat result from the projected retirement ofnearly half of all fisheries biologists workingin the United States within the next fiveyears, but also to contribute to the diversityof a workforce traditionally underrepre-sented by minorities and women.

BENEFITS TO MENTORS

Mentors and participating organizations receivemany benefits including:

1. Complimentary membership in AFS,2. Professional development quality points

for certification,3. Compliance with diversity initiatives,4. Assistance with important summer projects,5. Potential future employees, and6. The opportunity to have a positive effect on

the life of a high school student.

HOW TO SUPPORT THE HUTTON PROGRAM

You can help support the Hutton Program by:

1. Volunteering to be a Hutton Mentor(visit www.fisheries.org and click on “Mentors.”)

2. Making a financial contribution(visit www.fisheries.org and click on “Donate.”)

3. Offering to help find mentors for students in your area(email [email protected])

4. Advertising the program to students, mentors, and organizations(email [email protected])

5. Encouraging your AFS Section, Chapter, or Division to become involved in Hutton

Two summers ago, I would have never considered

fisheries as a major and now I leave for college in a week and

my major is wildlife ecology and fisheries.

—Casey SleznikowClass of 2005 and 2006

Applications for the 2007 Hutton Program must be postmarked by 15 February 2007.


FF II NN AA LLCC AA LL LL FFOORR

PPAAPPEERRSS AANNDDSSYYMMPPOOSSIIAA

FF II NN AA LLCC AA LL LL FFOORR

PPAAPPEERRSS AANNDDSSYYMMPPOOSSIIAA

AA FF SS 11 33 77 TT HH AA NN NN UU AA LL MM EE EE TT II NN GG •• SS AA NN FF RR AA NN CC II SS CC OO ,, CC AA LL II FF OO RR NN II AA •• 22 –– 66 SS EE PP TT EE MM BB EE RR 22 00 00 77

CCOONNTTAACCTTSSQQuueessttiioonnss rreeggaarrddiinnggssyymmppoossiiaa sshhoouulldd bbeeaaddddrreesssseedd ttoo::Eric Wagner1465 W. 200 NorthLogan, UT 84321435/752-1066 x22Fax 801/[email protected]

QQuueessttiioonnss rreeggaarrddiinnggccoonnttrriibbuutteedd ppaappeerrsssshhoouulldd bbee aaddddrreesssseedd ttoo::Larry BrownU.S. Geological SurveyPlacer Hall6000 J StreetSacramento, CA 95819-6129916/[email protected]

QQuueessttiioonnss rreeggaarrddiinnggppoosstteerrss sshhoouulldd bbeeaaddddrreesssseedd ttoo::Kathy HiebCalifornia Department

of Fish and Game4001 N. Wilson WayStockton, CA 95205209/[email protected]

QQuueessttiioonnss rreeggaarrddiinnggmmeeeettiinngg llooggiissttiiccss aannddppllaannnniinngg sshhoouulldd bbeeaaddddrreesssseedd ttoo::David ManningSonoma County

Water AgencyP.O. Box 11628Santa Rosa, CA 95404707/[email protected]

AAnnyyoonnee wwhhoo wwiisshheess ttoooorrggaanniizzee aa ccoonnttiinnuuiinnggeedduuccaattiioonn ccoouurrssee oorrwwoorrkksshhoopp sshhoouullddccoonnttaacctt::Craig WoolcottJ J Howard Marine

Science Lab74 Magruder RdHighlands, NJ [email protected]

We invite you to California as the American FisheriesSociety (AFS) convenes its 137th Annual Meeting at theMarriott Hotel in downtown San Francisco September2–6, 2007. The theme of the meeting is “ThinkingDownstream and Downcurrent: Addressing Uncertaintyand Unintended Consequences in Fish and Fisheries.” Atthe interface between the Sacramento-San JoaquinRiver drainage and the Pacific Ocean, San Franciscoprovides an outstanding venue to think about managingwhole ecosystems, advance your professionalnetworking, and to keep current on emerging ideas infisheries science and management.

SS YY MM PP OO SS II UU MM PP RR OO PP OO SS AA LL SSThe Program Committee invites proposals for symposia

from individuals or groups. Symposia may be presentedas oral presentations, posters, or both. Topics should berelated to the meeting theme (these will receive priority)or be of general interest to AFS members. Symposiumorganizers are responsible for recruiting speakers, solicit-ing their abstracts, and directing them to submit their

abstracts through the AFS online abstract submissionform. Each symposium should last at least a half-day(about 10 oral presentations) and may span a maximumof two days (about 40 oral presentations). There is no limi-tation for the number of posters submitted for symposia.

Symposium proposals must be submitted by 12January 2007 via e-mail to Eric Wagner([email protected]) with the proposal attached inthe correct format in MS Word or WordPerfect; pleasecontact Eric Wagner (address and phone below) if youdo not receive confirmation by January 19. The ProgramCommittee will review all symposium proposals andnotify organizers of acceptance or refusal by 2 February2007. If accepted, organizers must submit a complete listof all confirmed speakers and titles by 23 February 2007.Symposium abstracts (in the same format as contributedabstracts; see below) are due by 2 March 2007.

FFoorrmmaatt ffoorr ssyymmppoossiiuumm pprrooppoossaallss::1) SSYYMMPPOOSSIIUUMM TTIITTLLEE:: Brief but descriptive.2) OORRGGAANNIIZZEERR((SS)):: Provide names, addresses, telephone

and fax numbers, and e-mail addresses for all organiz-

CC AA LL LL FF OO RR WW OO RR KK SS HH OO PP SSII NN SS TT RR UU CC TT OO RR SS // PP RR OO FF EE SS SS OO RR SS

DDoo yyoouu hhaavvee aann iiddeeaa ffoorr aa sshhoorrtt ccoonnttiinnuuiinngg eedduuccaattiioonnccoouurrssee oorr wwoorrkksshhoopp tthhaatt ccoouulldd bbee ooffffeerreedd aatt tthhee 22000077 AAFFSS AAnnnnuuaall MMeeeettiinngg iinn SSaann FFrraanncciissccoo,, CCaalliiffoorrnniiaa??We are currently seeking proposals for short courses (4–16hours of instruction) to be held on September 1st and 2nd,before the meeting starts. The AFS Annual Meeting can giveyour course exposure to a diverse pool of fisheries profession-als at all stages in their careers, so take advantage of thisopportunity to offer it through AFS! In order to best serve theprofession, we are particularly interested in courses in the sub-jects that were assessed to be most needed by the AFSmembership as well as the Northwest community:

• Statistics and Analysis• Restoration and Enhancement• Population Dynamics• Multi-Species Interactions• Technical Writing• Computer Skills• Leadership and Stakeholder Coordination Skills• Distance Learning

Other ideas are also welcome! To propose a course, down-load a Course Approval Form from the Web atwww.fisheries.org (click on “Education”) or contact, CraigWoolcott ([email protected], 732/872-3069 or GailGoldberg ([email protected], 301/897-8616 ext. 201) toreceive an application. All applications must be received by19 January 2007.

The largest Dungeness crab ever caught was 10 inches in diameter.

PHO

TOS: JA

CK

HO

LLING

SWO

RTH, SA

NFRA

NC

ISCO

CO

NV

ENTIO

N A

ND

VISITO

RS BUREA

U


ers. Indicate by an asterisk the name of the main con-tact person.

3) DDEESSCCRRIIPPTTIIOONN:: In 300 words or less, describe the topicaddressed by the proposed symposium, the objectiveof the symposium, and the value of the symposium toAFS members and participants.

4) FFOORRMMAATT:: Indicate format and length of the proposedsymposium (for example: a full-day session with 20speakers, a full-day session with 15 speakers followed bya 2-hour panel discussion, half-day session with 10 speak-ers; in general, allow 10 time slots per half-day session).

5) MMOODDEERRAATTOORR:: Identify who will moderate the sympo-sium. If there is more than one moderator pleasesupply all names.

6) PPRREESSEENNTTAATTIIOONN RREEQQUUIIRREEMMEENNTTSS:: We encourage speak-ers to use PowerPoint for presentations. Presentationsin other software programs need to be approved priorto acceptance.

7) AAUUDDIIOOVVIISSUUAALL RREEQQUUIIRREEMMEENNTTSS:: Symposia chairs willneed to provide a PC-interface laptop computer fortheir sessions. LCD projectors will be available in everyroom. Other audiovisual equipment needed for thesymposium will be considered, but computer projec-tion is strongly encouraged. We encourage/requestthat all Mac-based presentations be converted to PCformat prior to the meeting.

8) SSPPEECCIIAALL SSEEAATTIINNGG RREEQQUUEESSTTSS:: Standard rooms will bearranged theatre-style. Please indicate special seatingrequests (for example,“after the break, a panel dis-cussion with seating for 10 panel members will beneeded”).

9) SSPPEEAAKKEERRSS AANNDD TTOOPPIICCSS:: Provide each speaker’s name,tentative title of presentation, and the speaker’s con-firmation status in the following format:Speaker Title/Topic Confirmed1. _________________ ___________________ (yes/no)2. _________________ ___________________ (yes/no)

10)SSPPOONNSSOORRSS:: If applicable, indicate sponsorship. A sponsor is not required.

CC OO NN TT RR II BB UU TT EE DD OO RR AA LL AA NN DD PP OO SS TT EE RR AA BB SS TT RR AA CC TT SS

The Program Committee for the 137th AFS AnnualMeeting invites abstracts for contributed oral presenta-tions and posters. Poster submissions are stronglyencouraged because of the limited space available inthe program for oral presentations. The meeting sched-ule will include a special poster session to encouragediscussion between poster authors and attendees.

Both contributed oral presentation abstracts and con-tributed poster abstracts must be received by 9 February2007. All submissions must be made by using the AFSonline abstract submission form, which is available on theAFS website (www.fisheries.org).

Only one oral presentation (symposium or con-tributed) will be accepted for each senior author;additional posters are allowed.

Submitting via the AFS website is required, and format-ting is automatically done for you. On the “Session Topic”lines of the abstract form, please indicate which twogeneral topics best fit the concept in your abstract. Usea brief but descriptive title, avoiding acronyms or scien-tific names in the title unless the common name is not

widely known. List all authors, their affiliations, addresses,telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses. Abstracts arerestricted to 200 words and should be a summary of yourfindings. All presenters will receive an immediate emailconfirmation of their abstract submission and will be noti-fied of formal acceptance and the designated time andplace of their presentation in April.

GGeenneerraall ttooppiiccss ffoorr ccoonnttrriibbuutteedd ppaappeerrss aanndd ppoosstteerrssiinncclluuddee:: Bioengineering, Communities and Ecosystems,Contaminants and Toxicology, Education, Fish Culture,Fish Health, Fish Conservation, Freshwater Fish Ecology,Freshwater Fisheries Management, Genetics, Habitat andWater Quality, Human Dimensions, Marine Fish Ecology,Marine Fisheries Management, Native Fishes, Physiology,Policy, Population Dynamics, Statistics and Modeling,Species Specific (specify), and Other (specify).IInnddiiccaattee yyoouurr pprreeffeerreennccee ffoorr tthhee pprreesseennttaattiioonn ffoorrmmaattuussiinngg oonnee ooff tthhee ffoolllloowwiinngg::

1) Oral presentation only2) Poster presentation only3) Oral presentation preferred, but poster presentation

acceptable.

Late submissions will not be accepted. Please notethat AFS does not waive registration fees for symposium,workshop, or contributed session participants. All presen-ters and meeting attendees must pay registration fees.Registration forms will be available on the AFS website(www.fisheries.org) in April 2007; register early for costsavings!

The San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, or SFMOMA, hasbeen a landmark of the South of Market, or SoMa, districtsince it opened in 1995. Designed by noted architect Mario Botte, it houses one of the most eclectic art collections in the world.


Ph.D. Graduate Research Assistant,School of Environment and NaturalResources, Ohio State University,Columbus.Posted: 10/10/06.Closing: 12/31/06.Responsibilities: Conduct researchrelated to monitoring the impacts ofvarious stream restoration practices inOhio. Research supported by ODNR,Division of Wildlife. Qualifications: M.S. in biology, ecology,fisheries, or related field. Experiencesampling and identifying fishes andmacroinvertebrates. Experience withwatershed models preferred.Salary: $1,500 per month plus tuitionwaiver.

Closing date: Prefer 12/31/06 Target start date: 7/1/07 Contact: Send letter of interest, CV, GREscores, and contact information of 3references to: Dr. Lance Williams, Schoolof Environment and Natural Resources,The Ohio State University, 2021 CoffeyRoad, Columbus, Ohio 43210. 614/292-7739. E-mail applications preferred:[email protected].

Ph.D. Graduate Research Assistant inEnvironmental Toxicology, Fisheriesand Illinois Aquaculture Center andDepartment of Zoology at SouthernIllinois University, Carbondale.Posted: 8/29/06.Closing: 12/29/06.

Responsibilities: Work with activeenvironmental toxicology group. Potentialresearch topics include: joint toxicity ofmultiple stressors, fate and effects ofpesticides in aquatic systems, andbioavailability issues in sediments. Qualifications: M.S. in zoology,biochemistry, chemistry, toxicology, orrelated field. Experience with toxicologicalbioassays, culturing of aquatic organisms,and analytical equipment (GC/HPLC). Salary: Research assistantships willinclude a competitive salary (~$16,000),full tuition waiver, health benefits, andsupport for the proposed research. Closing date: 12/31/2006. Starting dates: Fall 2006-spring 2007.Contact: Send letter of intent describing

See more job listings at www.fisheries.org; click on Jobs.

JOB CENTER EMPLOYERS: To list a job opening on the AFS Online Job Centersubmit a position description, job title, agency/company, city, state,responsibilities, qualifications, salary, closing date, and contactinformation (maximum 150 words) to [email protected]. Onlinejob announcements will be billed at $350 for 150 wordincrements. Please send billing information. Listings are free forAssociate, Official, and Sustaining organizations, and for Individualmembers hiring personal assistants. If space is available, jobs mayalso be printed in Fisheries magazine, free of additional charge.

2007 Membership ApplicationAmerican Fisheries Society • 5410 Grosvenor Lane • Suite 110 • Bethesda, MD 20814-2199

301/897-8616 x203 or 218 • fax 301/897-8096 • www.fisheries.org

Name _____________________________________________ PLEASE PROVIDE (for AFS use only) ___ EMPLOYERAddress ___________________________________________ Phone _____________________________ Industry ___________________________________________________ Fax _______________________________ Academia ___________________________________________________ E-mail______________________________ Federal government City _____________________ State/province ____________ Recruited by an AFS member?yes no State/provincial governmentZip/postal code ___________ Country __________________ Name _____________________________ Other _________________

MEMBERSHIP TYPE (includes print Fisheries and online Membership Directory)NORTH AMERICA/DUES OTHER DUESDeveloping countries I (includes online Fisheries only) N/A $ 5 Developing countries II N/A $25 Regular $76 $88 Student (includes online journals) $19 $22 Young professional, _______ (year graduated) $38 $44 Retired (regular members upon retirement at age 65 or older) $38 $44 Life (Fisheries and 1 journal) $1,737 $1,737 Life (Fisheries only, 2 installments, payable over 2 years) $1,200 $1,200 Life (Fisheries only, 2 installments, payable over 1 year) $1,000 $1,000 JOURNAL SUBSCRIPTIONS (optional) NORTH AMERICA OTHERJournal name Print Online Print OnlineTransactions of the American Fisheries Society $43 $25 $48 $25 North American Journal of Fisheries Management $43 $25 $48 $25 North American Journal of Aquaculture $38 $25 $41 $25 Journal of Aquatic Animal Health $38 $25 $41 $25 Fisheries InfoBase $25 $25

PAYMENT Please make checks payable to American Fisheries Society in U.S. currency drawn on a U.S. bank or pay by VISA or MasterCard. Check P.O. number _________________________VISA MasterCard Account #_______________________ Exp. date ________ Signature ________________________________________All memberships are for a calendar year. New member applications received January 1 through August 31 are processed for full membershipthat calendar year (back issues are sent). Those received September 1 or later are processed for full membership beginning January 1 of thefollowing year. Fisheries, December 2006

PAID:


research interest and goals, a resume,transcripts and three letters of referenceto: Dr. Michael Lydy, Fisheries and IllinoisAquaculture Center, Southern IllinoisUniversity, Carbondale, IL 62901,618/453-4091, cell 618/201-1681,[email protected].

Assistant/Associate ProfessorCrustacean and Molluscan Biology,Deptartment of Fisheries and AlliedAquaculture, Auburn University.Posted: 11/10/06.Closing/review: 12/15/06Start date: 8/16/07. Responsibilities, qualifications,application instructions, and otherinformation: www.ag.auburn.edu/fish/.

Contact: Dr. Allen Davis, Chair, SearchCommittee, Department of Fisheries andAllied Aquacultures, 203 Swingle Hall,Auburn University, AL 36849;334/844-9312; or fax 334/844-9208,[email protected]. AA/EOE.

Fishery Biologist GS-482-11/12, Bureauof Reclamation; Klamath Falls, OR.Posted: 11/8/06.Closing: 12/8/06Responsibilities: Conduct ecologicalinvestigations for listed suckers,salmonids, and other fish species inthe Klamath Basin. Negotiateagreements with other agencies andprivate development interestsassociated with operation of the

Klamath Irrigation Project. Qualifications: Experience withwestern sucker and salmonid species ina eutrophic lacustrine and riverineenvironment, experience developingstudy designs to evaluate limitingfactors affecting listed species, researchstudies and contracts, and experiencewith water delivery or irrigationprojects. Salary: $51,972-80,975 Closing: 12/8/06. Contact: Cindy Williams at541/883-6935, [email protected] Resources Office, 916/978-5471, [email protected]. BR-MP-2006-325 is open to U.S. citizens. BR-MP-2006-324 is open to U.S. citizens with

Description• fellowships for highly qualified Ph.D.-level graduate students

interested in careers in: (1) population dynamics of living marineresources and development and implementation of quantitativemethods for assessing their status, and (2) economics ofconservation and management of living marine resources

• support for up to three years for Population Dynamics fellowships,and up to two years for Marine Resource Economics fellowships

• approximately two fellowships awarded each year in eachdiscipline, with overall maximum of 12 Fellows at any time

• fellows work closely with mentors from NMFS Science Centers orLaboratories and may intern at NMFS facility on thesis research orrelated problem

Program goals• encourage qualified applicants to pursue careers in and increase

available expertise related to: (a) population dynamics andassessment of status of stocks of living marine resources, or (b) economic analysis of living marine resource conservation and management decisions

• foster closer relationships between academic scientistsand NMFS

• provide real-world experience to graduate students and accelerate their career development

Eligibility• must be United States citizen• prospective Population Dynamics Fellows must be

admitted to Ph.D. program in population dynamics orrelated field (applied mathematics, statistics, orquantitative ecology) at academic institution in

United States or its territories• prospective Marine Resource Economics Fellows must be in

process of completing at least two years of course work in Ph.D.program in natural resource, marine resource, or environmentaleconomics or related field

Award• grant or cooperative agreement of $38,000 per year awarded to

local Sea Grant program/host university• 50% of funds provided by NMFS, 33 1/3% provided by National

Sea Grant Office (NSGO), and 16 2/3% provided by university asrequired match of NSGO funds

• disbursement of award for salary, living expenses, tuition, healthinsurance, other fees, and travel determined by university

Relevant dates• application deadline—early February 2007 (see Sea Grant website

for details—www.seagrant.noaa.gov/funding/rfp2006.html)• fellowship start date: 1 June 2007

Contact• Dr. Terry Smith

National Sea Grant College Program1315 East-West HighwaySilver Spring, MD 20910301/[email protected]

• any state Sea Grant program—www.nsgo.seagrant.org/SGDirectors.html

• any participating NMFS facility—www.nmfs.noaa.gov/science.htm

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) / Sea Grant Joint Graduate Fellowship Program in Population Dynamics and Marine Resource Economics


federal status. Apply online atwww.usbr.gov/pmts/hr/hireme.html

Scientists—Theoretical AquaticEcology, Modelling and/or (Statistical)Data Analysis (two two-yearpositions), Potsdam University, nearBerlin, Germany.Review begins: 1/9/06Closing: Until filled. Start: 1/12/06 and 1/7/08.Responsibilities: Work within the EUMarie Curie Transfer of KnowledgeProject FEMMES (FEedback Mechanismsin Models for Ecological forecastS) todevelop innovative models that forecasthow environmental change affectsecological systems at different hierarchicallevels (e.g., populations and communities)which may be linked by feedbackmechanisms. FEMMES will last for 4 years,comprised in total of five positions, and ishosted by the Department of VegetationScience and Nature Conservation, and theDepartment Ecology and EcosystemModelling, focusing on pelagicecosystems. Details of the research to beconducted at Potsdam are open to

discussion and should be linked toprevious experiences and current researchinterests of the applicant and to ongoingresearch of the host (e.g., food webtheory, metabolic basis of ecology,ecological stoichiometry, size spectra; fordetails see www.bio.uni-potsdam.de/oeksys/index.htm). Theanalyses may be based on temporally andtaxonomically highly resolvedmeasurements of plankton biomass andproduction in Lake Constance (20-yeartimeseries), and on long-term micro- andmesocosm experiments. The unusuallycomprehensive L. Constance data set hasalready provided the basis for numerous(model) studies which resulted inseasonally resolved size spectra andquantitative food web models in units ofcarbon and nutrients which may befurther analyzed. Another focus of thehost is on improving the capability ofdynamic simulation models to account forthe potential of individual populations toadapt to altered conditions, and for(species) shifts in community compositionwhich change average communityproperties. Other topics are also

welcomed as is teaching of post-graduatestudents. Salary: Includes mobility allowance anddepends on the scientific experience. Qualifications: Fluent in speaking andwriting English. Knowledge of German isnot essential but helpful. Formal requirements of the EU: Seehttp://cordis.europa.eu/mariecurie-actions/tok/apply.htm) (1) Non-Germancitizen of the EU or an associated country(e.g., Norway, Switzerland, Rumania,Turkey, etc) who has not stayed inGermany for > 1 year during the past 3years, or non-Germans who stayed in theEU or an associated country for at least 4out of the past 5 years, but not > 1 yearin Germany, or Germans who workedoutside the EU or associated countriesduring at least 4 of the past 5 years. (2) atleast Ph.D. Contact: Send application, researchproposal, and publication list [email protected] or: Professor Dr.Ursula Gaedke, Universität Potsdam,Maulbeerallee 2, D-14469 Potsdam,Germany. (The previous 3 fellows acquiredfunding to continue their stay in Potsdam.)

Advertising IndexCOMPANY PHONE PAGEAdvanced Telemetry Systems, Inc. 763/444-9267 cover 3Bellamare 858/578-8108 588EcoAnalysts 208/882-2588 586Floy Tag and Manufacturing, Inc. 800/843-1172 623Frigid Units 611Hallprint 622Halltech Aquatic Research, Inc. 519/766-4568 606Hydroacoustic Technology, Inc. 206/633-3383 585Miller Net Company 630The Nature Conservancy 610Northwest Marine Technology, Inc. 360/468-3375 cover 2Sea Grant 629Smith-Root, Inc. 360/573-0202 cover 4

VEMCO, Ltd. 902/852-3047 597, 599

Tell advertisers you found them through Fisheries!

fisheries - moya k · without any nuance of grey. jennifer l. nielsen 611 director’s line the web...

Documents