28-29 April 2007
Best Western Marina Grand Hotel
Corpus Christi, Texas
Welcome/Call to Order
Gary Saul, FAS President, called the meeting to order at 8:30 am and welcomed everyone to Texas. A quorum was present (21 members)
Review/ Approval of Minutes from September 10, 2006 AFS-FAS meeting in Lake Placid, NY
Ken Kurzawski, FAS Secretary Treasurer, asked if there were any changes to the minutes distributed to the membership by email and handouts. No changes were offered. Bob Curry made a motion to accept the minutes without correction. Hannibal Bolton seconded. Motion was approved.
Review of Treasurers Report
The treasurer’s report prepared by Ken Kurzawski was reviewed. Activity since the Lake Placid meeting included numerous transactions associated with the NFHAP workshop held in Lake Placid. The FAS served as banker for this workshop and total cost to the Section was $167. The current balance in the Section’s account is $8,412.60.
FAS Bylaws Changes – Ken Kurzawski, TPWD
Our Section name change was presented at the AFS business meeting in Lake Placid so that AFS Rules could be changed to reflect the new name. Our Section’s description in these rules was subject to some last minute wordsmithing from the floor in an attempt to make the description of the Section more inclusive by noting that members can come from the various entities that have an interest in administration of fisheries programs. Since that action, AFS Constitutional Consultant and FAS member Gwen White suggested a simplified description that will be presented for approval at the 2007 business meeting.
Salary Update – Doug Stang, NY Dept. of Environmental Conservation
Doug said he hopes to submit a first draft to Fisheries sometime early this summer; not sure if it will be accepted for publication. The information is available to anyone who needs it. The report included 39 agencies representing 36 states. Missing states are clustered on the West Coast and the small Northeastern states. Actual reported salaries were used which was a change from the min/max ranges.
Nominations for President Elect and Secretary/Treasurer
For President-elect, Doug Stang nominated Dale Burkett and Gary Martel seconded. Don Gabelhouse nominated Benjy Kinman and Marion Conover seconded,
For Secretary/Treasurer, Don Gabelhouse nominated Ken Kurzawski and Bob Curry seconded.
National Fish Habitat Initiative Update – Mike Staggs, Wisconsin DNR & Mike Stone, WY Game & Fish Dept.
Mike Staggs handed out the summary of the Lake Placid workshop prepared by Group Solutions. This summary was shared with the NFHAP Steering Committee. Mike recognized the great support we received from sponsors such as the USFWS, BASS, and others. NOAA said they’d pay for a follow-up publication. The Steering Committee discussed submitting a summary to Fisheries but everyone has moved on to other projects. Mike requested the summary of the workshop be posted on the FAS website.
Gary Saul asked if the summary would be newsworthy for Fisheries. Mike worked closely with Christopher Estes to get the needed information to Stan Moberly, who is the AFS rep. Doug Beard added that Stan used Mike’s summary notes at the last Board meeting.
Hannibal Bolton asked if there was any message from AFS that they endorse NFHI. Gary Saul said Stan Moberly is the Society’s rep. to the Board and that we’ve supported that effort.
Bob Curry said the workshop was to define the partnerships and the Board has followed up on that. Does the AFS endorse the partnerships?
Dale Burkett said we should compare Mike’s summary to what the board did. Did that receive the AFS’s endorsement?
Hannibal Bolton said the Board probably wouldn’t change direction now without the AFS’s endorsement.
Dale Burkett suggested briefing the Governing Board to get their endorsement. Multiple sections (FAS, FMS, & Fish Culture) could all support that effort.
Gary Saul said he will talk to Stan about this. Bob Curry supported that.
Doug Beard suggested getting Stan to write something for Gus’s column.
Mike Staggs said information from workshop was presented to the NFH Board. The Board will meet in early June to formalize criteria. The five Pilot Partnerships have been invited to attend. If there are deficiencies in the criteria, those should be presented to the NFH Board and Partnerships. Gary Saul added FAS members should state their concerns. (Note: An email was sent to all state fish chiefs requesting their input on the proposed process that the Board will use to formally recognize Fish Habitat Partnerships under the National Fish Habitat Action Plan.)
Mike Stone said States need to maintain a lead role in the process. USFWS has staff committed. One way is to give input and stay engaged in the Pilot Partnerships. Do the criteria for partnerships match the need?
National Fish Habitat Action Plan Science and Data Report Synopsis – Doug Beard, USGS
Doug gave a presentation on the on the NFHAP Science and Data Team’s progress. The Team’s objectives are:
- Develop a National habitat status & trends report
- Develop a National assessment framework
- Provide a tool for the measurement of habitat actions
- Develop a set of habitat measures and priorities
- Develop overall targets and goals
Doug said the team is thinking big to get lasting results. Ultimately the team’s deliverables are: to recommend national goals and targets; coordinate tracking and metrics among Regional Partnerships; synthesize evaluations and scores from Regional Partners; and conduct a National Fish Habitat Assessment. Technology isn’t as much an issue as are the “people” component.
Jim Martin asked if the science and data aren’t moving too fast. An interface with the Partnerships is needed to see if it works. That will be tough to maintain if there are more partnerships. Doug said that freshwater data is in better shape than salt water. More interfaces with coastal entities need to be developed.
Tim Birdsong said if there is a need for funding the Multistate grants may be an option. Doug Beard said that grants along with the NFWA paid for the National Data Summit last year in Salt Lake.
Gary Martel asked if the amount dedicated to the NFHAP is $1 million or $3 million. Hannibal Bolton said $3 million. Mike Staggs asked how much of the $3 million is going to program administration. Hannibal wasn’t sure as Congress has not yet finalized the budget. Marion Conover asked what the targets for the funding are. Hannibal said the Board is asking for $50 million annually with $25 million going to the USFWS.
Jim Martin said the big issue is the impact of development and climate changes on the watersheds. We should be looking for the data to do the overlays where development will occur. Fish chiefs should think about what they can most impact with the funding they have. Need lists and the NFHAP technical team should provide the data.
Dale Burkett noted a system with economic incentives and disincentives for developing in valuable areas may work.
Doug Beard noted that Eric Schwaab is no longer with AFWA.
NFHAP Workshop in San Francisco – Mike Staggs, Wisconsin DNR
Gary Whelan asked if the FAS would co-sponsor another NFHAP workshop in San Francisco. Fish Management Section is also being contacted. Doug Stang made a motion that the Section support the workshop and contribute for sponsorship of a break. Bob Curry asked how much does a break cost. Doug said we could limit our funding to $500. Mike Staggs amended the motion to limit our contribution to $500. Motion was approved.
Ecosystem approach to protection and improvement of fish and fishing in natural lakes, constructed lakes and ponds – Don Bonneau and Marion Conover, Iowa DNR
Don Bonneau gave a presentation on Iowa’s program. Their current program consists of a:
- Prioritization of 127 public lakes – factors: basin/watershed, water quality, public benefit
- Working priority list of 35 lakes
- Legislatively adopted plan - goals, process, criteria
- $9.2 million (FY07) state appropriation
- $9 Million (FY08) state appropriation
The goals of the program are:
- Water Clarity
- 4.5 ft. achieved 50% of time April-September
- Beaches meet recreational use standards
- Healthy aquatic community established
- Impairments eliminated
- Benefits sustained for 50 years
The future challenges of the program are:
- Maintenance of prioritization process
- Identification of stakeholders
- Development of partnerships
- Funding
- Land use & agriculture policy
Jim Martin – CRP and impact of biofuels will need to be considered. Some of the most erodable lands are the most valuable. Don Bonneau said they are trying to react to that and if CRP goes away.
Mike Staggs asked if there is a common list of watershed practices. Who does the contact work with landowners? Marion Conover said position descriptions of all managers list 20% of their time should be spent on watershed work. NRCS also has watershed coordinators.
Jim Martin said NFHI can add values to this and/or impact reauthorization of Clean Water Act. The public reacts more to water than fish habitat.
Doug Nygren asked what the cost per acre for improvements is. Don offered a figure of $1,000 for 8,000 acres.
Bill Provine asked how did this program get started. Guidance rules were formulated and then an assessment and priority ranking was done.
Don Gabelhouse asked if fishing is important to the NFHI? Don mostly sees an emphasis on recovery of stocks at risk.
Don Bonneau asked if FAS would support a national conference to bring the water and fisheries professionals together. The group discussed what this would entail. There was mention of NALMS, an EPA national lakes conference, and a session on this topic at the 2007 Midwest Fish & Wildlife Meeting. Based on what happens at the Midwest meeting the group approved a motion (moved by Hannibal Bolton; seconded by Don Bonneau) to have Don continue to investigate how the Section can assist in organizing a conference.
Science-based, Interjurisdictional Risk Assessment for Agency-Approved Imports, Transfers & Related Activities – Duane Chapman, USGS Columbia Environmental Research Center
The intent of the process is to open a dialog about how states should assess risk and interact regarding intentional importation and use of non-native organisms. How do states move beyond federal regulations like the Lacey Act? Is there a need for institutionalized consultation and agreements between states? States do communicate on introductions already. Nile perch, zander introductions did not occur possibly because of objections by other states. Introductions and importations will continue and sometimes will be beneficial. Risk assessment is important because an alternative is applying same risk to all potential introductions. Must realize that risk assessments always are a “judgment call”.
NAISA requires that within 3 years of enactment that no live aquatic organism not already in trade be imported into the U.S. without screening and approval. Requires the Invasive Species Council in conjunction with the ANS Task Force and in consultation with regional panels, States, tribes and other stakeholders, promulgate guidelines for screening (i.e., Risk Assessment of) proposed planned importations of live aquatic organisms in the U.S. NAISA probably will not pass any time soon. It does not address importations from within the USA or subspecies, “strains” or genetic modification issues. States and others will be part of NAISA Risk Assessment planning (so might as well have a system in place that you like).
Duane read a statement from Dr. John Nickum addressing detectable genetic differences. Some highlights:
- assumption that every detectable genetic difference reflects actual … differences of importance to the ecological and/or evolutionary success of local assemblages.
- … probabilities … of evolutionary, ecological , or management importance are very small.
- I suggest that FAS take a stand …unless there are observable differences …"genetic differences" detectable only by modern molecular techniques should not be reasons for disallowing transfers between geographically separated populations of a species.
Some of the science-based risk assessment models being investigated are: EPA risk assessment process, GARP, and Generic Nonindigenous Aquatic Organisms Risk Analysis Review Process (Risk Assessment Management Committee 1996).
Brownson and Dochoda have proposed the following Introduction / Transfer Consultation process:
1. Recognize authorized introductions as option.
2. Use existing authority.
3. Consider all authorized intros, including aquaculture taxa.
4. Address all fish mgt & aquaculture actions w/ potential to introduce new genetic material.
5. Assess risk of other govt-approved activities.
6. Institutionalize caution – Precautionary approach.
7. Provide for administrative support.
8. Institutionalize cross-border / binational consultation.
9. Welcome public input. Be open.
10. Create efficiencies, e.g., precedents & models / objectives
Marion Conover asked what about the NAISA authorization? Duane said every piece is controversial especially when dealing with the aquarium trade.
Doug Nygren asked who is involved in the dialog from our side? Duane said Introduced Fishes Section is involved but would welcome the involvement of other AFS sections.
Hannibal Bolton noted that NAISA was loaded down with numerous amendments. Need a process to find out what’s passable and what’s not. AFWA Water Resources Policy Committee was involved. Mike Staggs added there is an Exotic Species Committee also. Duane said the desire was to get a “big” bill and not settle for something less.
Mike Staggs said between agencies issues are dwarfed by stuff coming in from the outside such as baitfish.
Mike Stone agreed the Lacey Act doesn’t help due to the injurious species definition.
Duane Chapman said there needs to be someway to regulate the vendors as there are just too many end users.
Toyota Texas Bass Classic Tournament: A new Paradigm for Pro Bass Tournaments? – Dave Terre, TPWD
Dave gave a recap of the first successful Toyota Texas Bass Classic fishing tournament. The first-of-its-kind bass fishing tournament grouped 160 Professional Anglers into teams of four. The event combined the conservation aspects of the Lake Fork’s slot limits with certified observers and on-the-water scales, allowing anglers to weigh fish normally not allowed on a slot-limit lake. The TPWD Inland Fisheries Division provided technical support, and the Professional Anglers Association (PAA) oversaw tournament regulations and operations. Planned as an annual event, the tournament both showcased the great bass fishing that Texas has to offer and raised funds to help support the TPWD and its mission of increasing access to the outdoors and developing outdoor opportunities for all. At the conclusion of tournament, lead sponsor Gulf States Toyota presented a check for $250,000 to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. The tournament included many family-friendly activities and musical performances by country music stars Clay Walker and Tracy Lawrence. An estimated 27,500 people attended the events at Lake Fork over the course of the Pro-Am and TTBC tournaments, including the 1000-plus on-site support staff members.
Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia in New York waters – Doug Stang, NY Dept. of Environmental Conservation
VHS is an aquatic form of whole family of RNA-containing plant and animal viruses described by their rod-like shape. It is best known as a serious disease of rainbow trout and a few other freshwater fish raised commercially in Europe; and it is present and has caused fish kills in the marine environments of the North Atlantic and North Pacific. Because it causes high mortality and can have severe economic impacts, VHS is designated a reportable disease by the World Organization for Animal Health. VHS is readily transmissible to fishes of all ages, and survivors of the virus can be lifelong carriers. It affects a wide range of fish species.
To date, a total of 18 species representing 8 families of fish have tested positive for VHS in the Great Lakes system. Based on our experience, and due to the wide range of fish already proven susceptible, we believe that all freshwater fish may be susceptible to this strain of VHS.
Due to the confirmation of VHS in Great Lakes waters, the United States Department of Agriculture – Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service issued a federal order on October 24, 2006 that prohibited importation from Ontario and Quebec and movement out of the 8 Great Lakes States live fish of 37 species. This was a stop-gap measure to help minimize the risk of VHS to the aquaculture industry of the United States. This order did not allow for the movement of live individuals of the 37 species out of the 8 states under any circumstance. Following meetings in Washington, DC in which DEC staff participated, USDA-APHIS issued an amended order that allowed some movement of live fish from the 8 states.
This past fall, we tested fish from all waters where we take fish for our hatchery system, and none were positive for VHS. We were unable to collect a sufficient number of muskellunge in Chautauqua Lake this past fall for testing, so we will collect fish next spring. We are currently awaiting the final test results of other (not muskellunge) fish from Chautauqua Lake, and the preliminary screen looks good.
Due to the proximity of the Salmon River hatchery to VHS-positive waters, New York is taking a very conservative approach and not transferring any fish from the Salmon River Hatchery to other hatcheries, and are only stocking Salmon River Hatchery fish into the Great Lakes system. This will have almost no impact on NY’s recreational fishing opportunities.
NY’s first round of emergency regulations eliminated the commercial harvest of bait fish from VHS-positive waters (and their tributaries upstream to the first impassible barrier); to minimize the potential commercial collection and transport of bait fish under the guise of personally collected bait fish, and limited the number of bait fish an individual may possess to 100. Under the current rules, fish may be collected and sold from VHS-positive waters except they may only be sold for use in that same water collected and may not be transported overland. All fish destined for the waters of New York must be tested for specific diseases and certified free of these diseases.
Jim Martin asked if emerald shiners were going to other states to be used as bait. Doug said yes.
Mike Staggs asked about NY’s concern with the PCR method. Doug said it can give some positives even if negative for cell cultures and the current standard test is via cell culture.
NYSDEC conducted the initial testing for all in-state fish hatcheries. In 2007, VHS surveillance testing from wild fish sources will be conducted by USFWS as part of wild fish testing. NY LE is on board. NY is checking on the salting process for minnows. Haven’t gotten any positives after salting; additional testing is needed.
Doug Nygren asked about pathways for transmitting the virus. Doug S. said the usual procedures should be taken to disinfect boats, etc. Not known how long the virus remains viable out of the fish host; mostly just in fish body fluids. Mike Staggs reported Wisconsin is investigating the impacts of moving bait and other fishes. Some impacts to fish weirs and wheels. Michigan won’t stock any cool water fishes.
Doug Nygren said producers in Arkansas and Mississippi are supposed to be tested.
Bob Curry noted that this could cause some concern in North Carolina as the white bass for making hybrids come from New York.
Jim Martin asked about the Canadian response. Doug Stang said they have created a zone system.
2007 Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Awards – Don Gabelhouse, Nebraska Game & Parks Commission
Time to request submissions for this year’s round of awards. Don wants to revise awards criteria #3-5 to make them more applicable to the evaluation of submissions. This year’s volunteers to review the submissions are: Mike Staggs; Doug Stang; Mike Stone; Gary Martel; and Ken Kurzawski. Don asked that group to also provide some suggestions for revising the awards criteria. Don also wants to work on improving visibility of the awards. Two suggestions are getting the notice of award winners into Fisheries magazine and at AFS Annual meeting. Photos of the award winners would be helpful for that effort. Follow-ups with AFS Annual meeting planning committee and Fisheries editors are needed.
North American Agenda for Aquatic Resources Update – Dale Burkett, Great Lakes Fisheries Commission
Dale gave a thorough presentation on precursors to and the evolution of the NAAAR. The topic was first discussed by FAS in 1988 at its Niagara Falls, New York meeting. The initial concept was deemed too narrow in focus and the decision was made to more fully develop the concept for future action. This lead to “Snowbird I” leadership conference held in Utah in 1991 and then “Snowbird II” in 1993. The first workshop’s results were visionary but lacked an implementation plan. The second lacked an implementation plan without ownership or support. At that time, a more conservative AFS was evolving. Next step was the “Wingate Report”. In 2002, AFS President Fred Harris appointed the North American Fisheries Action Plan Committee. The committee met in 2003 in Arlington, Virginia. Members attending were: Dale Burkett, Joe Margraf, Hannibal Bolton, Dave Cross, Dick Schaefer, Doug Beard, Gwen White and Stan Moberly. In March 2004, the AFS Governing Board began soliciting interest in the formation of a broad-based coalition with AFWA, FISHNET and others to develop the NAAAR. Nine “concerns”, now identified as issues, were adopted as the core of the AFS NAAAR effort. In August 2005, four of the nine AFS-approved issues were adopted as possible candidates for FAS subcommittee development. They were: habitat protection, restoration, and mitigation; conservation of fish stocks by sustainable use; introductions of aquatic invasive species; and development and use of drugs and chemicals for aquaculture, fishery research and management.
What’s in it for FAS? We continue to focus AFS attention on issues critical to the FAS, create active subcommittees that have the potential to attract new FAS members, increase FAS participation in the AFWA’s FWRPC, and, perhaps, increase the Association’s “fish I.Q.” Over the long haul, we attract more resources and gain better cooperation to “move the needle” for fish, fisheries, and aquatic ecosystems.
How does our Section wish to proceed? Bob Curry commented that it is better for the interest to come from the people in the field than from the top down. Jim Martin said they have to be on somebody’s agenda and be perceived to be important for them to make a difference. Bill Provine asked what are the “hot” issues in states, and how does that intersect with the NAAAR. Dale noted that the Canadian Aquatic Resources Section has shown some interest in the NAAAR and that may be a vehicle to get the process started.
Federal Budget Discussion – Hannibal Bolton, USFWS
Hannibal presented some information on the status of the USFWS budget. NFHI got $1 million from Congress. Everyone will be looking for some success stories from the five pilot projects. Into 2007, the $1 million will remain in the base and an additional $2 million has been requested. There is also $1.3 million for the fish passage program, but overall the ’07 budget is extremely difficult to interpret. Congress didn’t use President’s ‘07 budget, but used the ’06. Supposedly, all earmarks were eliminated and not sure of the impact of that on the USFWS’s budget. Now ’08 is coming up. The goal is to keep increases in NFHI and Fish Passage and request an additional $2 million for NFHI. Hatcheries are requested to receive $1.6 million for pay and other non-controllables for fish management, the request is $1.1 million. Wild fish health suffered a $475,000 cut which OMB now says was a mistake; hoping to get that restored.
Secretary Kempthorn has interest in a NFHI project for the Green River. More partnerships are expected for ’08. NFH Board would like 10-12 by 2010. For ’07, each of the partnerships should get twice their ’06 budget. Some money will go to USFWS as Tom Busiahn is supporting the Board. Some funding will go to each Region to facilitate coordination with each partnership and to cultivate new partners.
Bob Curry commented that he thought Dale Hall said there shouldn’t be any of the monies for the partnerships going to the Fisheries ARP or Ecological Activities.
Jim Martin noted that the impact of funding those original partnerships needs to be considered. Those original partners need to be planning to increase their match over time. Money needs to be made available for the startup of new partnerships. A schematic approach to the maturing of partnerships needs to be in place.
Doug Stang said that needs to be known up front. People have expectations that the funding will increase over time.
Hannibal commented the money should be used as a catalyst to bring in more funding.
Don Bonneau said the database development is important to the states. Hannibal said that’s important to the USFWS and USGS also.
Mike Stone said the program and partnerships need broad-based institutional support. It now seems more stopgap. AFWA has the multi-state grants as a primary function. There are always concerns about high overhead to administer any of the programs. Hannibal noted that four USFWS positions are committed to support of the Board.
Hannibal closed by noting Dale Hall supports recovery efforts but realizes USFWS partners such as the states helped rescue the Fisheries program. States need to continue to be part of the process and decision-making.
AFWA-ASA Fishing License Data Analysis Report – John Taylor, TPWD Dr. Taylor highlighted results/interpretation from the report, provided background information on the methodologies used, presented examples of TPWD application of these methodologies, and noted additional related reports available from Southwick Associates.
The fishing license report used data mining of license databases to access customer addresses and simple customer-reported demographics (age, gender), used address to access demographic information for customer’s neighborhood (additional demographics based on probabilities), and developed likely profile of customers. ArcGIS Business Analyst (BA) allows customer addresses to be converted to a geographic descriptor (e.g., neighborhood), the enhanced demographic info can be used to drill down to the block group level (you are like your neighbors), and is a non-invasive method to gain sensitive demographic insight (income, race, etc.). BA’s Tapestry Segments clusters people with similar demography, lifestyle, etc. into groups (“birds of a feather”) or “Tapestry Segments”. Tapestry Segments are given “catchy” names that reflect the characteristics of members. BA contains information describing demography/behavior of segment members and uses address to associate individuals with probable Tapestry Segments. TPWD has used it to look at state park customers and urban fishing users. Other reports available from Southwick Associates can be found at http://www.southwickassociates.com. John Taylor can be reached at john.taylor@tpwd.state.tx.us.
American Rivers Outstanding Rivers List
We received a request from Molly Cheatum of the American Rivers who is collecting information from various national, state, local, and non-profit organizations on rivers of the US that possess outstanding ecological, recreational, cultural, or scenic attributes. The last "Outstanding Rivers List" was published in 1991, and they are currently working to revise and update that list. If any FAS members can contribute information on rivers that possess outstanding fishing values, such as blue ribbon trout streams, etc., please contact Molly at
mcheatum@americanrivers.org.
Sunday Morning Discussion (Miscellaneous topics)
Don Gabelhouse suggested giving each state in attendance 20 minutes or so to talk about their hot/important issues. If some of us got to the North American in Phoenix, we should target that part of the U.S to get more states participating.
Need to check back with Mike Staggs’ survey on participation in FAS.
Can issues from NAAAR be used to drive the agenda?
Marion Conover noted that historically 15 or so states have participated in FAS.
AFS Divisional meetings could be used to recruit new members.
What about Federal involvement? A few agencies participate, but should we recruit more. What about ARD’s from USFWS? The fall meeting may be the opportunity to increase participation from Federal agencies.
States need a way to get input to the Farm Bill.
One avenue is to get State Executive Directors to be involved in more water committees. For some states, that will be difficult, but our goal should be to improve our influence with the Directors.
VHS could be a possible topic for the Water Policy Committee.
Retention of anglers continues to be a major issue.
What about the Angling and Boating Partnership Council? The reauthorization of Sportfish Restoration is on the horizon, and boating interest are unhappy with the allocation. The Council or ALB needs to be supporting fisheries interests.
As mentioned earlier, we need to find a venue to interact with the water people.
What should we do about NAAAR? It’s difficult for our Section to attack. From that angler retention may be one issue to start with.
Bill Provine mentioned the benefits of an outreach mentoring program; something like the “Anglers Legacy”.
What happened in states that partnered with RBFF on recruitment efforts? Follow-up on that would be a good topic for an upcoming meeting. Need a list of those contacts.
Still are concerns about adding more fishing to the NFHI. The SARP partnership has some language on that; need to get.
What happened with the “More fish and more fishing” campaign?
Don Gabelhouse recommends everyone read “Pavlov’s Trout” by Dr. Paul Quinnett.