Content uploaded by Daniel M. O'Keefe
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Daniel M. O'Keefe on Apr 15, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT OF PADDLEFISH
IN MISSISSIPPI WITH EMPHASIS ON THE
TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE
WATERWAY
By
Daniel Mark O’Keefe
A Dissertation
Submitted to the Faculty of
Mississippi State University
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
in Forest Resources
in the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries
Mississippi State, Mississippi
August 2006
CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT OF PADDLEFISH
IN MISSISSIPPI WITH EMPHASIS ON THE
TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE
WATERWAY
By
Daniel Mark O’Keefe
Approved:
________________________ ________________________
Donald C. Jackson Leandro E. Miranda
Professor of Wildlife and Professor of Wildlife and
Fisheries Fisheries
(Major Professor and Graduate (Committee Member)
Coordinator)
________________________ ________________________
Jeanne Jones Christopher M. Taylor
Associate Professor of Wildlife Associate Professor of
and Fisheries Biology
(Committee Member) (Committee Member)
________________________ ________________________
Bruce D. Leopold George M. Hopper
Professor of Wildlife and Dean of the College of
Fisheries Forest Resources
(Department Head)
Name: Daniel Mark O’Keefe
Date of Degree: August 5, 2006
Institution: Mississippi State University
Major Field: Forest Resources
Major Professor: Dr. Donald C. Jackson
Title of Study: CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT OF PADDLEFISH IN
MISSISSIPPI WITH EMPHASIS ON THE TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE
WATERWAY
Pages in Study: 161
Candidate for Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Paddlefish are long-lived large river fish which are declining in many areas of
their range due to habitat modifications and overfishing. A framework for management
of paddlefish in Mississippi is proposed and a case study of its application to the
paddlefish population of the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway (TTW) is presented. The
framework includes four phases: (I) distribution and stock assessment; (II) determination
of limiting factors; (III) design and implementation of management actions; and (IV)
review and monitoring.
Phase I of management in the TTW consisted of gill-net surveys in four
impoundments. Paddlefish abundance was estimated at 1,581 to 8,851 in Demopolis
Lake, Alabama. In Gainesville Lake, Alabama, CPUE was 16.8 times less than
Demopolis Lake. No paddlefish were caught in Aliceville Lake, Mississippi/Alabama, or
Columbus Lake, Mississippi. Demopolis Lake paddlefish grew faster than more northern
populations, but slower than more southern populations (Lt = 971.8 [1 − e−0.2844 (t+0.6962)])
and had a high annual mortality rate (A = 0.406) comparable to other southern
populations.
Potential limiting factors related to spawning in Demopolis Lake and stocking
programs in Columbus Lake were investigated pursuant to Phase II. Paddlefish eggs
were collected in the Noxubee River and a unique flowing bendway habitat in Demopolis
Lake during early April when discharge was ≥2.74 m above 50% exceedance. Flow
timing and magnitude in the Noxubee River was related to paddlefish year-class strength
(linear regression P = 0.089; R2 = 0.830). Radio-tagged paddlefish exhibited seasonal site
fidelity and 4 of 10 translocated fish returned to their area of initial capture.
Columbus Lake provides food resources and physiochemical characteristics
adequate for paddlefish survival, but depth and zooplankton density are more favorable in
Demopolis Lake. Emigration of stocked juvenile paddlefish was low in Columbus Lake
habitats; survival (percent after one month ± SE) was 5 ± 5 in backwaters and 28 ± 9 in
the mainstem after one month. Phase III recommendations include further investigation
of early life history requirements and protection of bendway and tributary habitat in
Demopolis Lake. The annual stocking of 4,000 juvenile paddlefish in the mainstem of
Columbus Lake and up to 1 million larval paddlefish in a tributary is recommended.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Thanks to Ricky Campbell, Carl Campbell, and Corey Gullett of the Private
John Allen National Fish Hatchery (United States Fish and Wildlife Service
{USFWS}), and Dave Richardson of the Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge
(USFWS) for their assistance with this project. Clark Young and Betsy and David
Lott generously provided access to Fortson Lake and stories of paddlefish from years
gone by. Johanna O’Keefe counted and identified zooplankton and assisted with
telemetry and gill netting. Dr. Donald C. Jackson provided guidance and support
critical to this endeavor. Funding was provided by the Mississippi Department of
Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks, federal aid projects T-1 and T-5.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................................................................. ii
LIST OF TABLES.......................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................ viii
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................. 1
Conservation and Management Framework ........................................................ 5
Identification of Management Units .............................................................. 8
Phase I: Distribution and Stock Assessment.................................................. 10
Phase II: Identification of Limiting Factors................................................... 15
Phase III: Management Actions..................................................................... 18
Phase IV: Monitoring and Review................................................................. 21
Prioritizing Watersheds.................................................................................. 21
Tombigbee Watershed ............................................................................. 22
Pascagoula Watershed ............................................................................. 22
Pearl Watershed ....................................................................................... 24
Big Black Watershed ............................................................................... 25
Yazoo Watershed..................................................................................... 25
Mississippi River and Backwaters........................................................... 27
Research Priorities ................................................................................... 29
Overview of Management Strategy ..................................................................... 32
Paddlefish Management in the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway ...................... 33
II. METHODS......................................................................................................... 35
Study Site............................................................................................................. 35
Distribution and Stock Assessment ..................................................................... 36
Historical Information.................................................................................... 36
Distribution and Relative Abundance............................................................ 37
Demopolis Lake Population Estimate............................................................ 39
Demopolis Lake Population Characteristics.................................................. 41
iv
CHAPTER Page
Potential Limiting Factors.................................................................................... 46
Demopolis Lake Spawning Habitat ............................................................... 46
Spring Flow Duration and Timing................................................................. 48
Habitat Use and Availability.......................................................................... 50
Columbus Lake Translocation ....................................................................... 52
Site Fidelity.......................................................................................................... 54
Columbus Lake Translocation ....................................................................... 54
Oktoc Creek Translocation ............................................................................ 54
Demopolis Lake Radio Telemetry................................................................. 55
Stocking Program Design and Monitoring .......................................................... 56
III. RESULTS........................................................................................................... 60
Distribution and Stock Assessment ..................................................................... 60
Historical Information.................................................................................... 60
Distribution and Relative Abundance............................................................ 63
Demopolis Lake Population Estimate............................................................ 64
Demopolis Lake Population Characteristics.................................................. 65
Potential Limiting Factors.................................................................................... 67
Demopolis Lake Spawning Habitat ............................................................... 67
Spring Flow Duration and Timing................................................................. 69
Habitat Use and Availability.......................................................................... 70
Columbus Lake Translocation ....................................................................... 70
Site Fidelity.......................................................................................................... 71
Columbus Lake Translocation ....................................................................... 71
Oktoc Creek Translocation ............................................................................ 72
Demopolis Lake Radio Telemetry................................................................. 72
Stocking Program Design and Monitoring .......................................................... 72
IV. DISCUSSION .................................................................................................... 74
Distribution and Relative Abundance.................................................................. 76
Demopolis Lake................................................................................................... 79
Columbus Lake .................................................................................................... 90
Conclusion and Management Recommendations................................................ 93
Noxubee River and Demopolis Lake............................................................. 94
Columbus Lake .............................................................................................. 97
Statewide Overview........................................................................................ 99
LITERATURE CITED ............................................................................................. 102
v
APPENDIX Page
A. SAS CODE FOR MONTE CARLO HABITAT SELECTIVITY TEST........ 130
B. RADIO TELEMETRY LOCATIONS FOR PADDLEFISH IN THE
TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY............................................ 132
C. PADDLEFISH CAPTURED WITH GILL NETS IN THE TENNESSEE-
TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY ................................................................... 152
vi
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE Page
1. Paddlefish CPUE (mean number caught per 5-hr net day ± SE) in gill nets at
fixed bendway and tailrace sampling locations in four impoundments of
the River Section of the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway May to
December of 2003 ................................................................................... 112
2. Characteristics of habitat (mean ± SE) used by radio-tagged adult paddlefish
(six in Columbus Lake and ten in Demopolis Lake) June 6 through July
7, 2004. Variables which significantly differ between lakes are denoted
with asterisks (two sample t test; α=0.05)................................................... 113
3. Results from multi-response permutation procedure (MRPP) analysis for site
fidelity of paddlefish radio-tagged in the flowing bendway of Demopolis
Lake; P < 0.05 indicates significantly different spatial distribution
between 2004 and 2005............................................................................... 114
4. Survival, and emigration (± SE) of juvenile paddlefish stocked into
backwater and mainstem habitats of Columbus Lake and radio-tracked
from June 30 to July 21, 2005. Abiotic environmental variable means
are shown with standard errors.................................................................... 115
5. Zooplankton densities (mean or mean ± SE when available) in systems which
support paddlefish populations or have been reported as suitable for
paddlefish restoration in this study and others ............................................ 116
B1. Radio-telemetry locations for paddlefish in Demopolis Lake and tributaries.
“HAB” indicates habitat type; “FLB”= flowing bendway; “NC”=
navigation channel; “NOX”= Noxubee River or Oktoc Creek; “TWB”=
Twelvemile Bend. “TEMP” indicates temperature in degrees Celsius.
“DAM” indicates distance from dam in meters. “BANK” indicates
distance from right bank of Demopolis Lake in meters. Latitude and
longitude reported in decimal degrees (datum: WGS 1984)....................... 133
vii
TABLE Page
C1. Paddlefish caught in the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway and a tributary
using gill nets. “HAB” indicates habitat type; “FLB”= flowing
bendway; “NOX”= Oktoc Creek in the Noxubee River sytem; “TWB”=
Twelvemile Bend. “MESH” indicates bar measurement of mesh size in
mm. “TYPE” indicates mesh type; “mono”= monofilament; “multi”=
multifilament. Age is given in years; asterisks denote ages estimated
with von Bertalanffy growth curve; ages without asterisks were
determined from pectoral fin rays. “EFL” indicates eye-to-fork length in
mm. Weight is given in kg ......................................................................... 153
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE Page
1. Proposed framework for management of paddlefish in Mississippi.................... 117
2. Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway with selected tributaries................................. 118
3. Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway arm of Demopolis Lake showing two
locations used for stock assessment: the flowing bendway between
Howell Heflin Lock and Howell Heflin Dam, and Twelvemile Bend........ 119
4. Locations of artificial substrates used to sample paddlefish eggs at shallow
(<3 m) and deep (≥3 m) sites in the flowing bendway of Demopolis
Lake below Howell Heflin Dam during spring 2005. ................................. 120
5. Paddlefish taken from Fortson Lake, a backwater of Tibbee Creek.
Photograph provided by Clark Young......................................................... 121
6. Comparison of paddlefish caught in Demopolis Lake 2003-2005 using three
sizes of multifilament gill net mesh (102-, 127-, and 156-mm bar; N =
48, 113, 70 respectively) ............................................................................. 122
7. Length frequency histogram for paddlefish caught in gill nets set in
Demopolis Lake during the 2005 sample season in Twelvemile Bend (N
= 55 males, 63 females) and the flowing bendway (N = 90 males, 41
females) ....................................................................................................... 123
8. Catch curve for male paddlefish (N = 145) caught during the 2005 sample
season in Demopolis Lake........................................................................... 124
9. Gage height and water temperature in the flowing bendway of Demopolis
Lake during spring 2005 and two indicators of spawning activity.
Female paddlefish were captured in the flowing bendway or Twelvemile
Bend. Capture of one or more paddlefish eggs on an artificial substrate
was considered a success............................................................................. 125
ix
FIGURE Page
10. Artificial substrate CPUE (paddlefish eggs per day) at shallow gravel (depth
<3 m; N =4), deep gravel (depth >3 m; N =3), shallow bedrock (N =1), and
deep bedrock (N =2) locations in the flowing bendway of Demopolis Lake
between March 30 and April 6, 2005. Error bars represent 95% confidence
interval where N >1............................................................................................. 126
11. Selectivity of flowing bendway (FLB) habitat during 2004 (N = 11) and 2005
(N = 9) and Twelvemile Bend (TWB) habitat during 2005 (N = 15) by
paddlefish which wintered in respective Demopolis Lake habitats. Values
above grey lines represent non-random selection (α=0.05)................................ 127
12. Comparison of Von Bertalanffy growth curves for paddlefish in Demopolis
Lake, the Tallapoosa River (Lein and DeVries 1998), Lake Ponchartrain,
Atchafalaya River, Lake Henderson (Reed et al. 1992), and the Missouri
River (Rosen et al. 1982). Curves shown are for males only with the
exception of the three Louisiana populations, which did not show sexual
dichotomy in growth rates .................................................................................. 128
13. Paddlefish locations in Twelvemile Bend, Demopolis Lake, during 2005.
Navigation channel habitat is shown with hatch marks. The upstream
(northern) intersection of Twelvemile Bend and the navigation channel has
been decreasing in depth since 1977................................................................... 129
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
When the average human mind conjures up the image of a “fish,” the shape of a
paddlefish (Polyodon spathula) is unlikely to appear in the mind’s eye. The scaleless
skin, shark-like heterocercal caudal fin, tiny eyes set anterior to an immense mouth,
elongated and tapered opercular flap, and almost comically-protruding paddle-shaped
rostrum combine to give the impression of a fish put together from spare parts; a piscine
platypus of sorts. The primarily cartilaginous skeleton, spiral valve intestine and
notochord of the paddlefish bear a striking resemblance to the internal structures of
chondrichthyans. Early taxonomists initially misclassified the paddlefish as a species of
shark (Hoover et al. 2000). The paddlefish is now classified as a bony fish of the
infraclass Chondrostei and placed in the order Acipenseriformes along with sturgeons
and its only extant confamilial relative, the Chinese paddlefish (Psephurus gladius)
(Moyle and Cech 1996; Ross 2001). It is native to large river systems of the United
States which drain into the northern Gulf of Mexico, and to the Laurentian Great Lakes
watershed where it is considered extirpated (Parker 1988).
Neither a shark nor a divine hoax, the paddlefish is well-suited to survival in large
river/floodplain ecosystems and many aspects of its unusual morphology represent
adaptations for survival in these environments. Humans are alien to the turbid, churning
2
depths of the ever-changing rivers that meander through middle America. Our
understanding of these systems is, in part, limited by the difficulty of sampling in rivers
so massive and potentially dangerous as the lower Mississippi (Brown et al. 2005a). The
enigmatic nature of these environments is mirrored in the shroud of mystery surrounding
paddlefish, the ultimate large-river fish.
Even hypotheses regarding the function of the rostrum were speculative until a recent
experiment verified its function as an “electrosensory antenna,” allowing juveniles to
feed upon individual zooplankters without visual or olfactory cues (Wilkens et al. 2001).
The ampullary electroreceptors that cover the rostrum are also present along the
elongated opercular flaps, suggesting that the length of both structures serves to increase
the electrosensory area. The function of electrosense in adult feeding and interspecies
communication has not been studied, and represents one of many knowledge gaps that
still persist.
Efforts to document evidence of paddlefish spawning date back to the turn of the 20th
century (Stockard 1907; Hussakof 1911), but none were successful until 1960 (Purkett
1961). Capture of juvenile paddlefish remains a noteworthy event, and can serve as
publishable evidence for spawning due to the extreme rarity of direct observation of
spawning, eggs, or larvae (Jennings and Wilson 1993). Spawning occurs during spring
over gravel bars (Purkett 1961) or in tailrace areas (Alexander and McDonough 1983;
Hoxmeier and DeVries 1997) following a significant (>2.74 m) rise in water level.
found in many habitats, although oxbow lakes which are cut off from the main river
under normal flow conditions can provide ideal nursery habitat (Hoxmeier and DeVries
3
1997). A comparison of growth rates in lentic and lotic reservoir environments revealed
that growth was higher in lentic age 0 paddlefish but similar between habitats in older
fish (Paukert and Fisher 2001a). As adults, paddlefish often return to mainstem
environments or ascend tributaries to spawn (Hoxmeier and DeVries 1997). Adult
paddlefish generally inhabit relatively deep, slow moving areas which are conducive to
the production or accumulation of zooplankton, their principal prey (Rosen and Hales
1981; Zigler et al. 2003). Paddlefish are also known to feed heavily on emerging insects
when available (Rosen and Hales 1981). Ingestion of fish has been noted, but only as an
oddity (Fitz 1966).
Throughout their range, paddlefish are sought for their roe, which is processed into
caviar that retails for up to $598.00/kg (Seattle Caviar Company 2003). Paddlefish meat
also is eaten in some areas where it is sold as ‘boneless cat’ (Alexander and Peterson
1985). The ‘Kentucky spoonfish caviar®’ moniker was recently trademarked for use in
conjunction with caviar produced by a company based in Louisville, Kentucky
(Shuckman’s Fish Company and Smokery 2005). Legal commercial and recreational
snag fisheries exist in some states. Snagging is the most effective means of sport fishing
for paddlefish because they do not commonly accept bait. The large size of adult
paddlefish, which can reach 2.16 m TL and 74 kg (Ross 2001), requires heavy tackle and
strong nerves.
Since the early 1900s, paddlefish have been declining in many areas of former
abundance (Dillard et al. 1986). Overfishing has contributed to the collapse of some
populations (Hoxmeier and DeVries 1996; Graham 1997), and temporary reduction of
4
others (Jennings and Zigler 2000; Scholten and Bettoli 2005). Paddlefish are extremely
vulnerable to overharvest due to their vulnerability to fishing gear and tendency to
congregate during spring (Jennings and Zigler 2000), and their life history strategy,
which includes longer life, older age at maturity, and lower lifetime fecundity than most
commercially harvested species (Boreman 1997).
While overfishing can be detrimental to paddlefish, their widespread decline is
primarily due to habitat fragmentation, destruction of spawning habitat, and alteration of
natural flow regime due to dams and other water development projects (Jennings and
Zigler 2000). This is especially evident in river reaches upstream from dams on the
periphery of their historic range, such as the Wisconsin River, Wisconsin, above the dam
at Prairie du Sac (Lyons 1993).
In 1981, the status of paddlefish in Mississippi was reported as “stable/increasing”
(Gengerke 1986). In 1997, the status was reported as “stable” (Graham 1997). Both of
these assessments were based on conversations with state-employed biologists who were
very familiar with the fisheries, but lacking data on which to base conclusions.
Paddlefish currently are listed as a species of special concern by the state of Mississippi
and the American Fisheries Society (Ross 2001), and are included in Appendix AI of the
Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES).
A summer-fall commercial fishery for meat exists in Mississippi, although it is
primarily incidental to the catfish and buffalo fisheries (George et al. 1995). Recreational
snagging is legal in Mississippi waters, with a limit of two paddlefish per day. Tailrace
areas are closed to snagging from November 1 to May 31. Anglers in northern
5
Mississippi refer to paddlefish as “spoonbill” or “spoonbill catfish” and occasionally
confuse them with flathead catfish (Pylodictis olivaris) if unfamiliar with paddlefish.
Although harvest of paddlefish is prohibited regardless of capture method November-
April to prevent the taking of roe, illegal roe harvest occurs throughout Mississippi (D.
Riecke, MDWFP, personal communication 2003).
Prior to the present study, paddlefish populations in Mississippi have not been the
subject of targeted large-scale sampling efforts. Existing knowledge therefore comes as
bycatch records from sampling of other species, and from communication with
commercial fishermen. Data from 340 paddlefish caught incidentally by a commercial
fisherman in the Big Sunflower River were analyzed by George et al. (1995). That paper
provides the only published information on paddlefish length-at-age, sex ratio, diet, and
condition for a Mississippi population. Mortality, fecundity, and growth rates for
Mississippi paddlefish populations have not been published. Graham (1997) noted that
there is little information on commercial or sport harvest of paddlefish in Mississippi.
The purpose of this project is to develop a framework for research, conservation, and
management of paddlefish in the state of Mississippi based on research and restoration
efforts initiated during 2003 in the Tombigbee watershed of northeastern Mississippi and
west-central Alabama.
Conservation and Management Framework
Fisheries management is driven by human needs and operates within a complex
mosaic of belief systems, value judgments, and economic concerns. Several disparate
6
human values are associated with paddlefish in Mississippi, and all must be taken into
account.
Due to its unusual appearance, large size, ancient origins, and popularity in public
aquariums, the paddlefish is a high-profile species compared to many other large-river
warmwater fish. Protection of paddlefish, which have become extirpated in peripheral
areas of their historic range, appeals to people who believe strongly in the protection of
biodiversity. A belief in the intrinsic value of life itself and the diversity of life forms
underlies some arguments for protection of biodiversity, but there are also real economic
concerns associated with biodiversity loss. Under the current operation of the
Endangered Species Act, the classification of a given species as “endangered” results in
expensive recovery efforts and governmental oversight of habitats deemed critical to the
endangered organism. Preventing species such as paddlefish from becoming endangered
is the goal of the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA), through which this
project was funded.
Beyond aesthetic and intrinsic values, paddlefish are important to people in a
utilitarian sense. Commercial harvest of paddlefish roe, which currently has a wholesale
value of $110/kg (Scholten and Bettoli 2005), provides a substantial source of income for
commercial fishers where roe harvest is legal. Beyond providing a living to large-scale
commercial fishers and augmenting the income and food supply of artisanal fishers,
paddlefish represent an important connection between humans and their surrounding
environment. The reliance of people upon their own immediate surroundings is an
7
important element of local culture, which is continually eroding as our economy becomes
more global in nature.
Roe harvest is so profitable that it appeals to the darker motivations of some people.
Poaching is a widespread problem not only because of the damage it does to paddlefish
populations and those who would harvest the fish legally, but also because poachers
typically eviscerate males and females alike and discard large quantities of carcasses in
public waters. This wanton waste creates a powerful and shocking image which can fuel
cynicism regarding law enforcement efforts and misplaced rage against legal commercial
and sport fishers.
Snagging of paddlefish is popular among sport fishers where paddlefish are abundant.
Snag-fishers do not differ markedly from other anglers in terms of their motivations,
which most notably include the desire to be outdoors, catch fish, and enjoy the company
of friends (Scarnecchia et al. 1996). In the Yellowstone River, Montana, snaggers rated
paddlefish meat highly as table fare but did not normally use the roe (Scarnecchia et al.
1996). In Glendive, Montana, the local Chamber of Commerce capitalized on the
disparity between the monetary value of the roe and the more abstract motivations of
anglers by encouraging the donation of roe in exchange for fish cleaning service. The roe
is processed into “Yellowstone Caviar” and sold by the Glendive Chamber of Commerce.
Proceeds are used to fund fisheries research and historical and cultural community
projects (Glendive Chamber of Commerce 2005). Examples such as this highlight the
importance of understanding values that motivate human behavior and the potential for
8
increasing optimum sustainable yield through non-traditional means that do not require
manipulation of fish populations, habitats, or harvest regulations.
Optimal sustainable yield is a paradigm that underlies fisheries management,
providing managers with the general goal of providing the maximum human benefit from
fish populations and aquatic ecosystems without impairing the ability of these natural
systems to replenish themselves. Paddlefish populations in Mississippi can be divided
into two categories: those that can naturally replenish themselves under current
conditions and those that cannot. The first step toward optimum sustainable yield is to
identify distinct paddlefish stocks in Mississippi and determine the long-term prospects
for each stock under current environmental and regulatory conditions. Management
actions should focus on restoration and elimination of harvest for depleted stocks,
whereas optimum sustained yield from abundant stocks could be realized through
legalization of a carefully-managed roe fishery.
Identification of Management Units
The Mississippi Interstate Cooperative Resource Association (MICRA) concluded
that currently available genetic data is insufficient for delineation of demographically
independent paddlefish populations (i.e. management units) (MICRA 2005). A
nationwide study under the direction of Dr. Edward Heist at Southern Illinois University,
Carbondale, is currently attempting to identify management units using mitochondrial
DNA microsatellites.
9
The best genetic information currently available suggests that paddlefish of the
Mobile basin are distinct from those of the Mississippi and Pearl basins (Epifanio et al.
1996). Within the Mississippi basin, paddlefish exhibited more subtle genetic differences
among major tributaries; patterns of variation between and within these tributaries were
somewhat ambiguous (Epifanio et al. 1996). No genetic information is available for the
Pascagoula drainage.
Within the state of Mississippi, paddlefish have been reported in the Tombigbee,
Pascagoula, Pearl, Big Black, and Yazoo drainages in addition to the Mississippi River
and associated backwaters. Based on the findings of Epifanio et al. (1996), the
Tombigbee watershed population is clearly distinct from Pearl, Big Black, Yazoo, and
Mississippi watershed populations. Genetic differences among other drainages may
exist, but current information does not verify any.
Until such time that more detailed genetic information is available, it is reasonable to
divide paddlefish populations according to major watersheds. Stock assessments should
be conducted independently in the Tombigbee, Pascagoula, Pearl, Big Black, and Yazoo
watersheds as well as the Mississippi River and adjacent backwaters. In addition to
genetic differences that may exist among watersheds, differences in habitats and patterns
of human interaction with paddlefish could influence stock structure, abundance, and
management strategy on a watershed-specific basis. Tissue samples should be taken from
at least 30 paddlefish from each watershed and preserved in 75% ethanol for future
genetic stock delineation (MICRA 2005).
10
Phase I: Distribution and Stock Assessment
The first step in determining viability of populations in each of the identified
watersheds is to collect presence/absence data at sites throughout each watershed.
Sampling along the mainstem of large rivers with gill nets ranging from 101.6- to 152.7-
mm bar mesh should be conducted during winter to adequately sample size structure,
maximize catch, and minimize mortality (Scholten and Bettoli 2005). Where and when
current velocity is slow enough to permit stationary nets set perpendicular to the flow of
the river, this approach is effective. Floating gill nets can be drifted with the current at
greater velocities. Drifting gill nets is a labor-intensive, but very effective, method of
sampling paddlefish in large rivers with moderate current.
A “predatory” approach should be used initially to further increase efficiency in
systems where the mere existence of paddlefish is questionable. A high-quality sonar
device can be used to identify congregations of large, suspended fish in reduced current
areas of relatively deep water before setting nets. Random or systematic sampling would
be more appropriate in areas of high density. In some instances, initial presence/absence
sampling may lead to identification of habitat strata relevant to paddlefish density. This
could be incorporated into stratified random stock assessment sampling regimes. Some
relevant strata may include time elapsed since channelization or snagging operations,
distance from dam, macrohabitat type (side-channel, main channel, oxbow lake, etc.), and
depth.
Communication with local landowners and fishers is an integral component of the
initial investigation of a watershed. Much can be learned regarding historic trends,
11
productive sampling sites, and local attitudes in this way. Researchers are able to obtain
solid quantitative data regarding a narrow slice of time, but the people whose lives have
been tied to rivers and fish through multiple generations can provide the sense of
historical, cultural, economic, and emotional perspective that gives context to our work.
Concurrent to presence/absence sampling in watersheds with low paddlefish catch per
unit effort (CPUE), radio transmitters should be implanted in paddlefish. In addition to
providing movement and habitat use information, telemetry can aid researchers in
locating seasonal congregations and increase the efficiency of stock assessment efforts.
Before beginning a thorough stock assessment, it is necessary to identify male and female
wintering areas. Males often congregate near spawning grounds in winter and early
spring, whereas females are not as likely to do this (Lein and DeVries 1998; Stancill et al.
2002).
Design of stock assessments in each watershed will differ. In rivers where paddlefish
are abundant, mark-recapture techniques incorporating random sampling or area-density
methods of population estimation may be preferable. In rivers with low abundance, such
a sampling scheme would be costly and impractical. The design of a stock assessment
study for an individual watershed is best left to the investigator responsible for the initial
presence/absence study. However, the parameters estimated should remain consistent
among watersheds when possible to facilitate comparison.
Sex ratio, relative stock density, condition, age distribution, growth rate, and
mortality rate are basic parameters that can be addressed for all extant populations using
data from adult paddlefish sampled with gill nets. Sampling during winter (water
12
temperature <10°C) and early spring facilitates sexing through examination of external
characteristics. At this time of year, males exhibit abundant small but visible tubercles on
the dorsal and lateral portions of the rostrum and head (Lein and DeVries 1998). Males
frequently release milt in March and April if gentle pressure is applied to the abdomen.
Females are characterized by swollen abdomens, and eggs can sometimes be felt by
inserting a finger into the urogenital opening. Minute tubercles are occasionally seen on
females, rendering non-lethal field sexing imperfect for a small fraction of specimens.
Non-lethal sexing was used in another study of Mobile basin paddlefish (Lein and
DeVries 1998).
Obtaining age distribution, growth, and mortality estimates requires ageing of
paddlefish. This is somewhat problematic for two reasons. First, published paddlefish
ageing studies use the dentary bone, which generally requires sacrificing the fish (Adams
1965; Reed et al. 1992; Hoxmeier and DeVries 1997). Male and female paddlefish
commonly exhibit different growth rates (Reed et al. 1992), thus requiring the sacrifice of
samples from representative length classes for each gender. Obtaining a sufficient sample
size is not advisable in depleted populations, which can be quickly eliminated through
targeted effort with gill nets. Sacrificing captured fish also inhibits the ability of
researchers to conduct mark-recapture population estimates and monitor movement. In
addition to requiring the sacrifice of fish, dentaries from paddlefish are difficult to age
due to the presence of false annuli or ‘halo bands’ (Reed et al. 1992; George et al. 1995).
Some authors suggest that annuli form during the summer in southern waters in response
to low dissolved oxygen or supraoptimal water temperatures (Lein and DeVries 1998).
13
No published study has addressed the precision of paddlefish dentary ageing, making
data obtained with this commonly used ageing technique subject to speculation.
Development of a non-lethal ageing technique would greatly benefit paddlefish
research, especially if this new technique is more accurate or precise than ageing with
dentaries. Preliminary investigation suggests that the leading rays of the pectoral fin can
be removed from living paddlefish, dried, sectioned, cleared, and magnified in a manner
similar to that used for sturgeons (Rien and Beamesderfer 1994; Rossiter et al. 1995).
Annuli can be seen clearly on pectoral ray sections, but the accuracy and precision of this
method has not been determined for paddlefish. To aid the development of pectoral fin
ageing technique, fin rays and dentaries should be collected from all paddlefish sacrificed
by researchers in Mississippi. Long-term monitoring of reintroduced paddlefish marked
with oxytetracycline (OTC) or coded wire tags (CWT) as young-of-year provides the best
opportunity to collect known-age fish for pectoral fin and dentary precision studies
(Brown et al. 2005b). When recaptured, fish from these stockings should be sacrificed
for ageing using both structures until a sufficient sample size is obtained.
Exploitation rate should be determined in addition to sex ratio, relative stock density,
condition, age distribution, growth rate, and mortality rate for populations that support
fisheries. Monitoring sport and commercial/artisanal exploitation through tag return
programs can be problematic because of inconsistent or unknown rates of tag reporting
by fishers, although tag returns were used to estimate mortality of paddlefish on the
Neosho River, Oklahoma (Combs 1982). For a high-profile, easily identifiable, and
tightly regulated species such as paddlefish, catch reporting by all successful fishers may
14
be a viable alternative to voluntary tag returns. Establishing paddlefish check stations at
the few popular tailrace snag fisheries in Mississippi would be relatively easy given the
infrastructure that already exists at these locations, their limited size, and the brevity of
Mississippi’s month-long paddlefish snag fishery. To ensure reporting and generate
interest, kill tags could be provided at no charge to paddlefish anglers at tailraces. This
approach has been used successfully for a variety of wildlife species throughout the
United States, and for lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) in Michigan.
The kill tag approach is less feasible for the primarily incidental commercial/artisanal
fishery that operates throughout Mississippi during summer. To study the
commercial/artisanal exploitation of paddlefish under the current regulations, it will be
necessary to monitor commercial/artisanal fisheries in general. This was done on the
Pearl River in 1988, and the annual paddlefish catch was a mere 55 kg (Holman 1988).
Given the cost and time investment required for a thorough study of commercial/artisanal
fisheries and the incidental, and potentially small, fraction of the fishery comprised by
paddlefish it is likely that the information (as it pertains specifically to paddlefish
management) gleaned from such a study would not justify the cost.
After the initial phase is completed, biologists should be able to determine the status
of paddlefish within a watershed. If the status is extirpated or in decline, research should
move into a second phase in which potential limiting factors are identified and
regulations should be altered to eliminate harvest. If the status is stable but unable to
sustain additional mortality through exploitation, the current regulations should be
maintained. If the status is stable and stock structure and abundance indicate that
15
additional harvest would be beneficial or harmless, regulations should be relaxed to allow
for limited roe harvest or longer snagging seasons. Any liberalization of legal fishing
methods should be followed with a study of exploitation rate and effects on stock
structure.
Phase II: Identification of Limiting Factors
If a given stock is declining or extirpated, limiting factors must be identified before
restoration efforts can begin. Habitat fragmentation, destruction of spawning habitat, and
alteration of natural flow regime are commonly cited causes of stock depletion (Carlson
and Bonislawsky 1981; Gengerke 1986; Sparrowe 1986; Jennings and Zigler 2000).
Monitoring of recruitment, availability of suitable spawning habitat, and effects of flow
regime on recruitment are complicated by lack of clear guidelines for sampling early life
stages and incomplete information regarding spawning habitat requirements.
Recruitment failure is a likely indicator of early life history or spawning habitat
limitations. Examination of year-class residuals along the descending limb of the catch
curve produced by stock assessment efforts from Phase I can indicate variable
recruitment. Direct measures of recruitment were not suggested in Phase I because of the
difficult logistics associated with such a study. Assessment of spawning success and
recruitment could focus on collection of wild-spawned eggs, larval paddlefish, or young-
of-the-year. Researchers have used a wide variety of methods to collect paddlefish at
these early life stages, but no single technique has proved effective under a wide variety
of environmental conditions.
16
Eggs have been sampled using dredges (Purkett 1961), ichthyoplankton drift nets,
and epibenthic sleds (Pasch et al. 1980). They also have been collected from gravel bars
after a drop in water level (Purkett 1961). Larvae have been collected with
ichthyoplankton drift nets and located visually by divers (Hoxmeier and DeVries 1997).
These techniques are labor-intensive and may not be practical in the turbid, debris-rich
rivers of Mississippi. The most complete long-term data sets pertaining to paddlefish
recruitment are provided by studies of impingement on screens at water intakes where
young-of-year paddlefish are routinely quantified (Alexander and McDonough 1983).
Gill nets are generally ineffective for sampling young-of-year paddlefish (Pasch et al.
1980). Cove rotenone application, seining, and electrofishing are not practical in pelagic
impoundment habitats that young paddlefish may prefer (Pasch et al. 1980). Otter trawls
have been effective in Lewis and Clark Lake, South Dakota (Ruelle and Hudson 1977),
but cannot be used in most Mississippi rivers due to abundance of large woody debris.
Boat electrofishing was effectively used to harvest juveniles in shallow lacustrine habitats
of the Cahaba and Tallapoosa rivers, Alabama (Lein and DeVries 1997). Electrofishing
may be effective in Mississippi where conductivity permits.
As paddlefish grow, they become more susceptible to gill netting. Preliminary data
suggest that hobbled gill nets hung with 4.4-mm or 5.1-mm bar monofilament mesh are
somewhat effective in targeting 320-390 mm eye-to-fork length (EFL) paddlefish after
their first year of growth in backwater and pond environments. This method of sampling
has the advantage of being easy to accomplish concurrent to adult stock assessment and
the major disadvantage of substantial bycatch in certain circumstances, occasionally
17
resulting in gear saturation by shad (family Clupeidae) within minutes. Methods for
assessing recruitment are not well-developed and should be improved upon and tailored
specifically to requirements imposed and opportunities available in each watershed.
Overfishing (legal and illegal) has been the cause for paddlefish decline in some
aquatic systems (Jennings and Zigler 2000). Identifying the effects of overfishing should
be less problematic to managers than recruitment, spawning habitat, and flow regime
issues. Stock assessments performed in the initial phase should provide managers with
stock structure data sufficient for identification of overfishing effects.
In watersheds where stocking is deemed necessary to augment adult spawning stock,
ineffective or suboptimal stocking technique may hamper population restoration and
constitute a limiting factor. The location of release and paddlefish size at release are
important factors in determining survival. Stocking and monitoring programs should be
designed to test competing hypotheses regarding these factors and mediating
environmental factors such as water clarity and zooplankton density.
Paddlefish may display seasonal site fidelity, returning to the same general areas year
after year to stage and spawn (Lein and DeVries 1998; Stancill et al. 2002). A more
complete understanding of site fidelity is especially important to restore paddlefish
populations in impounded rivers because (1) emigration from impoundments can be a
major barrier to successful reintroduction (Pitman and Parks 1994), and (2) development
of stocking protocols that encourage paddlefish to imprint on favorable spawning habitat
may lead to increased natural reproduction in the future. If paddlefish display natal
philopatry, stocking programs should be designed to take advantage of this behavior.
18
However, imprinting may occur very early in life, necessitating the development of a
mark that can be applied to larvae and read five to ten years later when fish return to
spawn as adults. Oxytetracycline and calcein are two chemical markers which may be
suitable.
Phase III: Management Actions
Management strategy for a watershed could: (1) remain consistent with the current
philosophy of roe-harvest limitation and one-month snagging season; (2) shift to
mitigation of limiting factors and population restoration accompanied by a complete
harvest ban in response to paddlefish scarcity; or (3) change to reflect abundance of
paddlefish in liberalization of harvest regulations. In addition to considering data from
earlier phases, proposed management actions should include elements of coordination
with relevant state, federal, tribal, and non-governmental organizations and public
participation. Discussion of proposed management actions provides the opportunity to
engage local landowners and diverse agencies in paddlefish conservation efforts and
develop a sense of what is possible. Implementation of management actions is ultimately
at the discretion of the Mississippi Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Parks.
In systems where paddlefish are declining, many possibilities exist to reverse this
trend. Overfishing might be curtailed through increased law enforcement or more
restrictive harvest regulations. Habitat and flow regime issues are more difficult to
address, likely requiring coordination with the United States Army Corps of Engineers to
19
alter discharge below flood control dams or landowners throughout the watershed to
improve land-use practices.
In areas of extreme paddlefish scarcity and apparent suitability of habitat, stocking
programs may be initiated under the assumption that the cause of historical decline is no
longer limiting to paddlefish production. Stocking programs should proceed in
accordance with the MICRA Paddlefish Genetics Plan (MICRA 2005), which suggests
spawning a minimum of five unique pairs of paddlefish annually for at least five years.
Paddlefish stocked as fingerlings in June or later have much greater survival rates than
paddlefish stocked as larvae (Graham 1986), and the spawning of five pairs of paddlefish
per year produces a number of paddlefish larvae that commonly exceeds hatchery grow-
out capacity. These excess larvae can be chemically marked and stocked into a tributary
stream to assess natal philopatry and mark retention. Ideally, a single tributary should be
chosen for all larval stockings within a watershed because chemical markers do not
effectively mark individuals or batches of larvae and will be unable to identify more than
one stocking location.
In watersheds where paddlefish are underfished, liberalization of harvest regulations
should include a limited and closely monitored legal roe harvest. Paddlefish roe is in
high demand, and demand is likely to increase in the near future in response to recent
regulations banning the import of beluga sturgeon (Huso huso) caviar and corresponding
rise in price of other Asian imports. Management solutions that generate revenue and
encourage legal exploitation of natural resources for the benefit of local fishers should be
emphasized. The vast majority of illegal paddlefish harvest is conducted by well-
20
organized criminals who know of appropriate channels through which illicit goods flow.
Opening legal channels between commercial/artisanal fishers of Mississippi and roe
processors will encourage benefit to local economies and connections between people,
the rivers, and the paddlefish while discouraging illegal activity by increasing roe supply
and driving down prices (assuming that large underfished populations exist in
Mississippi).
To reinforce the philosophy of allowing roe harvest to benefit the economy and
residents of this state, licenses for commercial roe harvest should only be available to
residents of Mississippi. This also would decrease interjurisdictional law enforcement
problems that could result from the transport of Mississippi paddlefish into neighboring
Alabama and Louisiana, where paddlefish harvest is illegal.
In watersheds where paddlefish are underfished, any regulation change that allows
increased harvest should be accompanied by a thorough study of exploitation rate, catch
and effort, economic impact, the effect of increased fishing mortality on stock structure,
and the demographics, motivations, and values of fishers. To facilitate this, tagged fish
should be present in the target river before the season begins. Initially, the roe harvest
season should be short and require the purchase of a special license. The license would
generate funds specifically for the management of the roe fishery and encourage
accountability of fishers, who should be required to report to check-in stations where
biologists can collect data on all paddlefish captured. An added benefit of this system is
that it discourages wanton waste of carcasses after roe collection. Carcasses not utilized
by fishers could be donated to charitable or governmental organizations by biologists.
21
Phase IV: Monitoring and Review
The effectiveness of restoration actions should be assessed through a second stock
assessment approximately ten years after stocking or habitat/flow improvement begins.
This will demonstrate the impact of restoration efforts on abundance and stock structure.
Recruitment also should be investigated at this time to ensure that natural reproduction is
occurring.
Review and improvement of management actions should occur continuously, with
formal meetings to discuss progress at five-year intervals. As data from watersheds
throughout the state are collected and analyzed, and the results of management actions
are realized, a picture of what works and what doesn’t will emerge. The two-tiered
approach of restoring depleted populations and increasing legal harvest of underfished
populations will hopefully result in healthier paddlefish populations and increased
cultural and economic human benefits.
Prioritizing Watersheds
The previously outlined framework could be applied to all paddlefish populations in
Mississippi, but logistic and monetary constraints may not permit simultaneous
investigation of all populations. Thus, a brief discussion of the limited available
knowledge pertaining to paddlefish populations in each watershed follows in addition to a
suggested prioritization of research needs.
22
Tombigbee Watershed
The Tombigbee River is a tributary of the Mobile River and was historically isolated
from the Mississippi Basin by the Tennessee Valley Divide. In 1985, the United States
Army Corps of Engineers completed the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, which
resulted in the creation of a freshwater corridor between the two basins, fragmentation of
the Tombigbee River through construction of ten dams, channelization of the river’s
mainstem, isolation of the mainstem from its floodplain, and impoundment of tributary
and mainstem environments (Ward et al. 2005). The effect of this widespread
anthropogenic impact upon the paddlefish population was not documented. Prior to the
current study, no published record of paddlefish in the mainstem of the Tombigbee River
in Mississippi existed. Paddlefish were collected in Mississippi waters of two tributaries
where apparently suitable spawning habitat exists (Boschung 1989; Mettee et al. 1996).
The Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway represents the only freshwater corridor between
the genetically distinct populations of the Mississippi and Mobile basins, raising concerns
regarding integrity of stocks (Epifanio et al. 1996).
Pascagoula Watershed
The mainstem of the Pascagoula River its two major tributaries, the Leaf and
Chickasawhay rivers, represent the last unregulated major river system in the
conterminous United States (Dynesius and Nilsson 1994). Land in the Pascagoula basin
is 59% forested, 17% wetland, and 19% pasture with only 1% urban and 2% devoted to
23
crop production (MDEQ 2001). The Pascagoula is the second largest watershed in
Mississippi and the least impacted by human activity.
Despite the lack of fragmentation and diversity of habitats available to paddlefish in
the Pascagoula watershed, an anecdotal report from a commercial fisherman who has
been fishing the system for over 40 years suggests that paddlefish were quite rare early in
2005 (Randy Emmons, personal communication). Commercial roe harvest from the
Pascagoula River apparently decimated the paddlefish population during the early 1980s
(Graham 1997) after caviar prices rose in response to the trade restrictions on Iranian
caviar imports (Alexander and Peterson 1985). Anecdotal reports suggest that illegal roe
harvest continued to impact paddlefish through the mid-1990s and that paddlefish never
fully recovered from this period of over-exploitation (Randy Emmons, personal
communication).
Hurricane Katrina resulted in the death of an estimated 60,765,808 fish in the
Pascagoula River through oxygen depletion during September of 2005 (Mississippi
Department of Environmental Quality {MDEQ}, unpublished data). The impact of
Katrina on paddlefish is unknown, but eight paddlefish were confirmed dead and a rough
estimate of 60 paddlefish mortalities was calculated by MDEQ. No historical data
regarding paddlefish population trends exist. No samples from this watershed were
included in studies of paddlefish genetics throughout their range (Epifanio et al. 1996),
and no specimens from the Pascagoula system were reported in museum records
summarized by Ross (2001).
24
Pearl Watershed
The Pearl River is free flowing from its confluence with the Gulf of Mexico to Ross
Barnett Dam, 450 km upstream (Ward et al. 2005). Although relatively free from
longitudinal habitat fragmentation, flow throughout much of the mainstem below Jackson
has been impacted by construction of a diversion canal for flood control (Ward et al.
2005). Water quality has suffered because of erosion, siltation, nutrient enrichment, and
input of toxins from agricultural and industrial point and non-point sources (Ward et al.
2005).
Though historical data regarding population structure and dynamics are not available,
some records of paddlefish in the Pearl River exist. Sampling effort targeting Gulf
sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrhynchus, in 1997 produced eight paddlefish, whereas
comparable effort on the Pascagoula River did not result in the incidental capture of
paddlefish (T. Slack, MDWPF, unpublished data). Sampling for Gulf sturgeon resulted
in the capture of several paddlefish in backwaters of the lower Pearl River in 1987 near
Columbia, Mississippi (D. C. Jackson, Mississippi State University, personal
communication). A creel survey conducted on the lower Pearl River estimated a total
commercial paddlefish harvest of 55 kg with hoop nets in 1988 (Holman 1988). The
Mississippi state record paddlefish (29.5 kg) was caught below the Ross Barnett spillway
in 1974.
25
Big Black Watershed
Free-flowing throughout the 434-km length of its mainstem, and virtually free from
modification for flood-control purposes since 1955, the Big Black River retains
floodplain connectivity that fuels production of ictalurids and other fish (Brown et al.
2005a). The low gradient and fine sediments of the Big Black make it unlikely to support
a strong population of spawning paddlefish if they are restricted to isolated gravel
deposits for egg incubation. Juvenile paddlefish were collected from the Big Black River
in 2000 (D. C. Jackson, Mississippi State University, personal communication). This
suggests that spawning gravel in this system may be sufficient, or perhaps that eggs
adhere to and incubate upon the abundant woody debris.
Yazoo Watershed
The region of northwest Mississippi drained by the Yazoo River is colloquially
referred to as “the Delta” (Smith 1954). The fertility of Delta soils led to its historic
prominence in cotton production and, more recently, channel catfish aquaculture. The
Yazoo watershed is the largest in Mississippi; land use is primarily agricultural (64%)
with significant forest cover (17%) and wetlands (13%) remaining (MDEQ 2000).
Several major tributaries (Coldwater, Little Tallahatchie, Yocona, and Yalobusha rivers)
originate in uplands adjacent to the poorly-drained, low-elevation Delta region. To
prevent flooding of the cultivated lands downstream, flood control reservoirs (Arkabutla,
Sardis, Enid, and Grenada lakes, respectively) were built on each of these tributaries.
26
In the Yazoo River drainage, recreational paddlefish snag fisheries exist in tailwaters
below flood control reservoirs (Gengerke 1986; Meals and Kiihnl 1993). The Sardis
Lake tailrace (Little Tallahatchie River) is noted as the premier fishery (Ross 2001).
Snaggers fish from the rip-rapped bank and from boats in the tailrace outlet channel and
in Lower Lake, which receives effluent from the outlet channel (Meals and Kiihnl 1993).
Paddlefish are only abundant seasonally at the tailrace and in Lower Lake (Meals and
Kiihnl 1993). The construction of a lowhead dam at the outlet of Lower Lake was not
shown to block paddlefish migration, although it was a barrier to blue sucker Cycleptus
elongatus (Meals and Kiihnl 1993). According to Gengerke (1986), C. A. Schultz
(MDWFP) reported that paddlefish numbers increased dramatically in the Yazoo River
drainage from 1952 to 1981; approximately 80% of the state’s commercially caught
paddlefish came from the Yazoo River and its tributaries during this period.
The free-flowing Sunflower River is unique among major Yazoo River tributaries in
that it has not been subject to extensive channelization and snagging operations (Brown
et al. 2005a). The soil fertility index of the Sunflower River watershed is the highest of
any watershed in the state of Mississippi, which is reflected in the low age of maturity
observed in channel catfish, Ictalurus punctatus (Shephard and Jackson 2005). The
Sunflower River also is the only system in Mississippi for which paddlefish data are
available. George et al. (1995) reported paddlefish capture in 1-4% of hoop nets set by a
commercial fisherman targeting buffalo (Ictiobus spp.) on the Sunflower River. Most
paddlefish captures occurred in deep pools near the mouth of permanently flowing
tributaries or gravel pits under stabilized or falling water level (George et al. 1995). Diet,
27
condition, growth, sex ratio, and length-weight relationships were consistent with
characteristics reported in other paddlefish populations and did not indicate a population
in jeopardy (George et al. 1995). The records of commercial fisherman William
Lancaster suggested that paddlefish, which were absent from his catches from 1969-
1979, were increasing in abundance from 1980 to 1995 in the Sunflower River (George et
al. 1995).
Paddlefish were “much more abundant” in the Delta than other areas of Mississippi in
the 1950s (Cook 1959). Historical population fluctuations have been noted in published
literature (Gengerke 1986; George et al. 1995), but not corroborated with fishery-
independent data. The cause of wide fluctuations reported in published literature is not
clear. During the period of time when paddlefish in the Pascagoula River were
reportedly declining due to overfishing and increased demand for roe, populations in the
Yazoo watershed were reportedly increasing (George et al. 1995; Graham 1997). The
low gradient and soft substrate of the Yazoo River and its principal tributaries
downstream from flood control reservoirs may offer paddlefish limited gravel substrate
for spawning; in the Sunflower River gravel occurs in small, isolated patches (George et
al. 1995).
Mississippi River and Backwaters
As the largest river of the continental United States, the Mississippi River provided
paddlefish access to a diverse array of main-channel, tributary, and seasonally flooded
lacustrine habitats prior to anthropogenic fragmentation longitudinally (damming of
28
upstream reaches and tributaries) and laterally (levee construction). Human disturbance
has drastically altered habitat connectivity, flow regime, nutrient load, and instream
habitat through agriculture, flood control, and navigation channel construction and
maintenance.
Several studies have documented paddlefish movement and habitat use patterns on
the upper Mississippi River (Southall and Hubert 1984; Moen et al. 1992; Zigler et al.
2003; Zigler et al. 2004). The most recent published studies pertaining to paddlefish of
the lower Mississippi River are nearly a century old despite the historic importance of the
commercial paddlefish fisheries of the lower Mississippi River and oxbows such as Lake
Washington, Mississippi, and Moon Lake, Mississippi (Stockard 1907; Hussakof 1911).
Anthropogenic habitat alteration has created some main-channel habitats preferred by
paddlefish (i.e., deep pools with reduced velocities associated with bridge abutments,
dikes, and wing dams) (Southall and Hubert 1984), in addition to reducing accessibility
and abundance of certain habitat types through fragmentation, dredging, impoundment,
and destruction of wetlands. Purkett (1961) hypothesized that destruction of shallow
gravel bar habitat in the Mississippi River led to declines in the commercial paddlefish
fishery.
The Mississippi River represents the epicenter of the paddlefish’s historic range. The
mainstem of the lower Mississippi River provides suitable feeding and, perhaps,
spawning habitat in addition to a corridor for movement between productive backwater
environments and major tributaries. Oxbow lakes that retain a connection to the
Mississippi River are not as abundant as they once were, but those that remain in
29
Mississippi (including Lake Mary) could provide important insights regarding the role
such backwaters play in paddlefish life history. Data from the Alabama River suggest
that backwaters are primarily used by juvenile paddlefish (Hoxmeier and DeVries 1997),
but the immense catches of large paddlefish from Moon Lake, Mississippi around the
turn of the twentieth century indicate that adults utilize large oxbows in some situations
(Stockard 1907). In 1951, the Mississippi Game and Fish Commission removed 25,057
kg of paddlefish from Moon Lake under the rubric of rough fish removal (Ross 2001).
Today, such a quantity of paddlefish would be valued at $1,048,474 (Southwick and
Leftus 2003).
The effects of habitat alteration on paddlefish population status and habitat use
patterns in the lower Mississippi River and connecting waters has not been studied.
Given the impressive historic capacity for paddlefish production, it is possible that
management practices based on the outcome of such research could result in a sustainable
and highly profitable paddlefish roe fishery.
Research Priorities
Based on the limited information available, paddlefish populations in two watersheds
appear to be threatened. The Pascagoula system offers a diversity of habitat types and is
free of fragmentation, apparently providing ideal conditions for paddlefish. The lack of
available data, reported decimation through overfishing, and disastrous effect of
Hurricane Katrina combine to make this a high-priority area for research. At the other
end of the spectrum is the Tombigbee system, which is impacted by fragmentation and
30
contains highly modified mainstem and tributary habitats in addition to less heavily-
impacted tributaries. Lack of historical information pertaining to this system and
anecdotal reports of declining paddlefish abundance led to the development of this
project and initiation of population restoration efforts. The Pascagoula and Tombigbee
watersheds represent top priorities due to reports of decline in paddlefish abundance and
possible localized or widespread extirpation.
The Yazoo system represents the greatest potential for sustainable commercial and
recreational fisheries based on limited available evidence. A thorough study following
the aforementioned framework has the potential to provide guidelines for more optimal
harvest within a few years. The diversity of fishing opportunities available by shore at
four tailraces or by boat combined with the productivity of the watershed should result in
a high level of sustainable harvest. During the period of time when paddlefish were
experiencing declines due to overharvest in other watersheds, their numbers were
increasing in the Yazoo system (George et al. 1995; Graham 1997). This suggests that
mechanisms other than fishing mortality historically mediated population abundance in
this watershed. Links between habitat availability, flow regime, and recruitment could
provide a basis for more effective management actions than harvest limits.
Without current data, this amounts to mere speculation. The Yazoo system is a third
priority because no evidence suggests that paddlefish populations there are declining or
jeopardized in any way, but the potential for an expanded fishery may exist. Unlike the
Mississippi and Pearl rivers, the Yazoo system is entirely within the borders of the state
of Mississippi. The current moratorium on paddlefish harvest in bordering Louisiana
31
would make it inadvisable for Mississippi to liberalize regulations along the Pearl and
Mississippi rivers. Also, recreational tailrace snagging opportunities are not available in
the Mississippi River and exist only below Ross Barnett Reservoir on the Pearl River.
Finally, if contemporary stock assessment of the Yazoo basin indicates low abundance or
other indicators of decline it would be cause for great concern in the light of the historical
published accounts of stable and increasing abundance. A presence/absence study should
include sites upstream from flood control reservoirs that are assumed, but not
demonstrated, to be upstream limits of paddlefish distribution.
Due to the interjurisdictional nature of the lower Mississippi River, movements of
paddlefish between states should be well-understood before pursuing a multi-agency
approach to paddlefish management in the system. The Sturgeon and Paddlefish
Committee of MICRA provides the coordination necessary for such discussions. A
telemetry study incorporating personnel from all bordering state agencies may be
necessary to adequately describe paddlefish movements and habitat use in the lower
Mississippi River. Such an effort would be of much larger scale than research projects in
other watersheds. Though the lower Mississippi River is potentially of greater
significance than other watersheds due to its size and historic productive potential, it is
placed as a fourth priority due to the amount of coordination and resources necessary for
such an undertaking. Combining an initial movement study with studies of other poorly-
understood large-river species such as alligator gar (Atractosteus spatula) and pallid
sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) would maximize the information return on such a costly
investment.
32
The scant information available for the Pearl River suggests local abundance of
paddlefish and minimal importance of fisheries in comparison to the Yazoo watershed.
Virtually no published information exists regarding Big Black River paddlefish
populations and fisheries. The Pearl River has more potential for human impact and
benefits due to the presence of major population centers (Jackson, Mississippi) along its
banks. The Pearl River is suggested as a fifth priority, and the Big Black River as sixth.
Overview of Management Strategy
The proposed management framework emphasizes a need for better information upon
which management actions should be based. The current approach of two neighboring
states, Louisiana and Alabama, is to completely restrict harvest until more information is
available. Mississippi’s current approach is to minimize harvest while retaining some
forms of legal fishing. Legal roe harvest has been essentially eliminated. A primarily
incidental commercial/artisanal meat fishery remains during the summer in addition to a
month-long recreational snagging season at select locations in October. Mississippi’s
approach is probably a very successful means of eliminating overharvest statewide, and
has the benefit of avoiding a complete ban in areas where paddlefish may be very
abundant. It should continue to serve the purpose of preventing overharvest while
maintaining limited legal fisheries until better information is available.
Applying the proposed management framework (Figure 1) to the six prioritized
watersheds would provide the needed information and allow for regional modification of
current statewide regulations. The ultimate purpose of the proposed framework is to
33
protect and restore severely damaged populations while working toward sustainable use
and increased human benefit from healthy or underfished populations. Data on which to
base decisions are sorely needed. The potential exists for both restoration of an
aesthetically valuable component of large river biodiversity and greatly increased
economic and social benefit through consumptive utilization of a recreationally and
commercially sought species.
Paddlefish Management in the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway
The management framework outlined above was developed as research on the
paddlefish population of the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway (TTW) progressed during
2003-2005. Stock assessment on the TTW was initiated in part due to anecdotal historical
reports of paddlefish in the Mississippi portion of the Tombigbee River and its tributaries.
Few data regarding historical or contemporary population abundance existed, so
hypotheses to explain the results of the initial stock assessment were developed
concurrent with execution of the stock assessment. The TTW provides a case study for
application of the proposed management framework. From the initial stock assessment,
the TTW study was expanded to include the following set of objectives:
1. Determine distribution and population dynamics of paddlefish populations along
the River Section of the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway.
2. Identify factors that limit paddlefish sustainability in two impoundments of the
Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway: Demopolis Lake and Columbus Lake.
34
a. Demopolis Lake: spawning and egg incubation habitat availability, spring
flow duration and timing, bendway habitat use and availability
b. Columbus Lake: food resources, physicochemical factors, emigration
3. Examine site fidelity in paddlefish as it relates to the feasibility of restoration in
Columbus Lake.
4. Develop an experimental paddlefish stocking program for Columbus Lake which
will enable future investigation of natal philopatry and emigration rates of
paddlefish stocked into tributary backwaters and mainstem habitats.
35
CHAPTER II
METHODS
Study Site
The 238-km long River Section of the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway (TTW)
includes four impoundments (Figure 2). Columbus Lake (3,606 ha) is the upstream
impoundment, and the only one that lies entirely within the state of Mississippi.
Downstream from Columbus Lake, Aliceville Lake (3,359 ha) is situated on the
Mississippi/Alabama border. Gainesville Lake (2,590 ha) and Demopolis Lake (4,047
ha), the downstream impoundment, lie entirely within the state of Alabama. Some
tributaries of these lakes, including the Noxubee River, originate in Mississippi.
Demopolis Lake is composed of two arms, the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway Arm
(Tombigbee Arm) and the Black Warrior Waterway Arm. Only the Tombigbee Arm and
the portion of the navigation channel downstream to Demopolis Dam are considered in
this study, and references to Demopolis Lake refer only to this portion of the lake unless
otherwise noted (Figure 3).
Macrohabitat types available in the River Section of the TTW include the dredged
and snagged navigation channel, tailraces downstream from dams, bendways, and
backwaters. Bendways were historically part of the Tombigbee River. Construction of
cutoffs provided a shorter route for navigation traffic (e.g., Twelvemile Bend on Figure
36
3). Siltation is rapidly reducing available bendway habitat because most bendways
do not carry most of the TTW discharge and are subject to the sedimentation of
suspended particles at low flows. A unique ‘flowing bendway’ habitat exists between
Howell Heflin Lock and Howell Heflin Dam in Demopolis Lake, where the dam
discharges water from upstream Gainesville Lake into a bendway (Figure 2). Backwaters
include a variety of lentic off-channel habitat types with varying degrees of connectivity
to the mainstem. Some, such as flooded creek mouths, are always connected to the
mainstem. Others, such as natural oxbow lakes and artificial gravel pits, are located on
floodplains and connect to the mainstem only during high water periods.
Distribution and Stock Assessment
Historical Information
Federal aid freshwater fisheries reports (1950-2003) published by the Mississippi
Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks (MDWFP) were reviewed for material
relating to paddlefish populations in Mississippi. NISC DISCover Fish and Fisheries
Worldwide software (Wyman Towers, 3100 St. Paul Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21218)
(June 2005) and online search engines were used to search peer-reviewed literature.
During the first year of this study, it became apparent that local residents and those
who spend a good deal of time on the water are an excellent source of information
regarding paddlefish in the TTW. The paucity of information that exists in the written
historical record and published literature can be augmented with accounts from those who
have encountered paddlefish along the waterway. Conversations were initiated with a
37
variety of people on the waterway during sampling for stock assessment. These
conversations were impromptu, informal, and un-scripted. Comments pertaining to
paddlefish were recorded on data sheets if the source seemed reasonably credible. In
some instances photographs were provided.
Distribution and Relative Abundance
Assessment of paddlefish distribution and abundance in the waterway focused on the
238-km River Section of the TTW, which flows from Aberdeen Lock and Dam at
Aberdeen, Mississippi, to Demopolis Lock and Dam at Demopolis, Alabama (Figure 2).
A sampling program was devised to allow for comparison of paddlefish catch per unit
effort (CPUE: fish per five-hour net day) between fixed bendway and tailrace sampling
sites in each of the four lakes in the River Section beginning in May 2003 and ending in
December 2003. Sampling gear consisted of gill nets, which were 30.5 m long, 3.7 m
deep, and hobbled to 2.4 m. Nets were hung with 101.6-, 127.0-, or 152.4-mm bar-mesh
multifilament webbing and fished in tandem. Each of the eight fixed sampling locations
(four tailraces and four bendways) was sampled once per two-month period with six nets
(two of each mesh size) set for a target of five hours per net. When gear failure or lack of
personnel prevented sampling on a randomly determined date an alternate date was
chosen.
Bendway sites were chosen primarily on the basis of the availability of deep (>9 m)
water because paddlefish often prefer the deepest water available (Zigler et al. 2003).
Three groups of tandem nets were fished at each bendway site. One was set in deep (>9
38
m) water, one was set in mid-depth water (3-6 m) adjacent to deep water, and one was set
at a creek mouth. Although actual net placement within locations was not always
constant across months due to changes in current and suspended debris, locations were
considered fixed as opposed to random. Tailrace net placement was nearly always
identical from one sampling period to the next due to the limited area available at tailrace
locations. All tailrace nets were set between 240 m and 800 m downstream of a dam. At
each site, one net was fished parallel to the current flow approximately 240 m from the
dam in moderate current; another was fished parallel to current flow on the edge of an
eddy; and a third was set perpendicular to the current flow down a steep drop-off ending
in approximately 6 m of water. Under relatively high-flow conditions, perpendicular net
sets were replaced with parallel sets to avoid accumulation of debris and drifting of nets.
Water with depth >6 m typically was not available at tailrace sites.
Mean CPUE at fixed locations (mean-of-ratios for sample periods calculated from
mean-of-ratios for individual net sets) is reported as an index of relative abundance.
Locations were chosen in the belief that they provided the best paddlefish habitat
available in each of the four lakes. I originally intended to analyze these data using a
split-plot analysis of variance (ANOVA) design for repeated measures, which is an ideal
design for comparison of fixed locations monitored over time (Maceina et al. 1994).
Violation of homogeneity of variance and normal distribution assumptions precluded
ANOVA analysis. The nonparametric equivalent Kruskall-Wallis test (Conover 1999)
requires independent samples. This assumption was violated due to the use of repeated
measures at each site.
39
Supplemental nets were set in a wide variety of habitats from April 2003 to February
2004 to ensure adequate spatial coverage of the waterway and tributaries and to ensure
that fixed locations were truly the best netting sites available. One tributary location
(Bluff Lake spillways, Oktoc Creek, Noxubee County, Mississippi) was sampled with
gear similar to that used in the TTW during March or April of 2003, 2004, and 2005 and
during September and November of 2004.
Demopolis Lake Population Estimate
Paddlefish were captured in Demopolis Lake, Alabama, using gill nets during winter
and spring from April, 2003 through May, 2005. Multifilament nets were 30.5 m long
and 3.7 m deep (hobbled to 2.4 m). These nets were hung with 101.6-, 127.0-, or 152.4-
mm bar-mesh multifilament webbing and generally fished in tandem on the surface or
substrate. Monofilament nets 47.7 m long, 3.7 m deep (hobbled to 3.0 m), and hung with
127.0-mm bar-mesh were fished singly with lead lines resting on the substrate.
Additional experimental mesh (101.6-, 127.0-, and 152.4-mm bar) monofilament gill nets
61 m long and 5.5 m deep were used during 2005. These nets were used to reach fish
suspended in water deeper than 9 m. They were often drifted or fished oblique, with one
end of the net tied to shore and the other end anchored in such a way that the deepest
portion of the net fished 3 m above the substrate. Tactics were modified during 2005 in
response to sonar data that indicated large concentrations of fish suspended between 3 m
from the surface and 3 m from the substrate.
40
For 2004, a population abundance estimate was calculated using Chapman’s
modification of the Lincoln-Petersen mark-recapture estimator (Chapman 1951). A 95%
confidence interval was calculated using the Poisson distribution due to low number of
recaptures (Ricker 1975). Only those fish captured in Demopolis Lake were used in
calculations. The marking period included twelve sample dates from October 17, 2003,
to March 16, 2004 and the recapture period included three dates between April 9 and
April 23, 2004. Gill nets were used for all initial captures. During the recapture period,
fish were taken with gill nets or found dead on shore.
During 2005, a second population estimate was conducted for the entire Tombigbee
Arm of Demopolis Lake using similar computations. The marking period included
twelve dates from December 31, 2004 until March 21, 2005 and fish were recaptured on
nine dates between March 30 and May 10, 2005. These periods were chosen based on
concurrent observation of radio-tagged fish, which moved little before late-March
spawning movements resulted in dispersal of paddlefish throughout the Tombigbee arm
of Demopolis Lake. This dispersal satisfied the assumption of random mixing of marked
and unmarked fish.
Paddlefish were captured during the marking phase using targeted gill net effort to
maximize catch in the flowing bendway and Twelvemile Bend. During the recapture
period, gill nets were set in two randomly-chosen river kilometers on two dates in the
flowing bendway and Twelvemile Bend. Random kilometers also were chosen for
sampling in the navigation channel, but conditions only allowed one net set on one
chosen date. Due to the low catch rate of randomly placed nets in the flowing bendway,
41
supplemental nets were set in productive areas to augment the catch during the recapture
phase.
Demopolis Lake Population Characteristics
Demopolis Lake stock assessment was limited to winter and spring to facilitate sexing
of paddlefish using external characteristics (Rosen et al. 1982) and minimize mortality in
nets, which can be high when water temperatures are warm. Sampling was conducted on
3 dates during the 2003 sample season (April 2003); on 12 dates during the 2004 sample
season (December, 2003 through April, 2004); and on 23 dates during the 2005 sample
season (December, 2004 through May, 2005). During 2003, the flowing bendway
between Howell Heflin Dam and Howell Heflin Lock (Figure 3) was the only area
targeted for stock assessment. Sampling for the 2004 season included 8 nets set in
Twelvemile Bend, which did not produce any paddlefish. Telemetry data from 2004
revealed more productive areas of Twelvemile Bend. Consequentially, 108 net-days
were recorded in Twelvemile Bend during the 2005 season. Attempts also were made to
sample the navigation channel during 2005. Only two net-days were recorded in the
navigation channel due to gear damage and potentially life-threatening sampling
conditions.
Nets were checked regularly in attempts to prevent mortality. Depending on water
temperature, nets were checked at 20-minute to 180-minute intervals. Captured fish were
measured to the nearest mm and weighed to the nearest 0.1 kg. Eye-to-fork length (EFL,
a.k.a. body length) was chosen as the standard measurement for paddlefish length due to
42
frequent rostrum abnormalities (Russell 1986). During 2003 and 2004, paddlefish were
marked with Floy lock-on and Floy T-bar tags at the base of the dorsal fin, and with
opercular flap notches. Paddlefish were marked with duplicate T-bar tags during 2005 in
response to observed loss of lock-on tags. Tissue samples were taken from pelvic fins of
most fish and preserved in 95% ethanol for genetic stock determination at the Fisheries
and Aquaculture Center at Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, in the laboratory of
Dr. Edward Heist. Moribund paddlefish were retained for aging using dentaries (Adams
1965).
Mature paddlefish were sexed using secondary sex characteristics (e.g., tubercles on
males) when possible (Rosen et al. 1982). Gender of moribund fish was confirmed
through necropsy and examination of gonads. Gender also was confirmed in paddlefish
taken to Private John Allen National Fish Hatchery (United States Fish and Wildlife
Service) in Tupelo, Mississippi, for use as broodstock. Injection with luteinizing
hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) stimulated the release of sperm in males and the
ripening of eggs in females, allowing for positive identification of gender. Seventeen
paddlefish were taken for broodstock during 2004 and 2005.
Relative stock density (RSD) was computed for paddlefish caught from Demopolis
Lake during 2005 (Anderson and Neumann 1996). Minimum EFL values of 410, 660,
840, 1,040, and 1,300 mm for stock, quality, preferred, memorable, and trophy
paddlefish, respectively, were used (Brown and Murphy 1993).
The chi-squared test for independence was used to test for differences in length-
frequency distribution of paddlefish according to mesh size, habitat, and year (Heath
43
1995). All paddlefish captured in Demopolis Lake were used to test the effect of mesh
size, whereas only paddlefish captured during 2005 were included in the habitat test
because the Twelvemile Bend habitat was not sampled during other years. In comparing
2004 and 2005 sample seasons, only males caught in the flowing bendway were used
because of small female sample size and lack of effective Twelvemile Bend sampling
during 2004.
The null hypothesis that paddlefish exhibited a 50:50 sex ratio during 2005 was tested
using chi-squared goodness-of-fit (Heath 1995). Sex ratios were examined separately for
paddlefish caught in the flowing bendway and in Twelvemile Bend. The null hypothesis
that sex ratio was independent of location was tested using the chi-squared test of
independence (Heath 1995). For all chi-squared tests, groups were combined such that
expected values <1 did not occur, and <20% of expected values for any test were <5
(Heath 1995).
Relative weight (Wr) was calculated for each paddlefish captured during 2004 and
2005 using the sex-specific Ws equations (Brown and Murphy 1993). Years were
divided into two seasons: prespawn (December-March) and postspawn (April 16-May
10). For 2004, the effect of season on Wr was tested separately for males and females
using two sample t tests (Heath 1995). A two factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) was
used to test for effects of season, habitat, and interaction of season and habitat on
condition of paddlefish caught during 2005 (Petersen 1985). Separate analyses were
performed for male and female paddlefish. Homogeneity of variance was verified with
44
Lavene’s test prior to performing analysis. All statistical tests were performed using SAS
Version 8.2 (SAS Institute, Inc. 2001).
Four to six lateral pectoral fin rays (Mabee and Noordsy 2004), including the primary
ray, were removed from 80 male paddlefish for ageing during 2005. Fin rays were not
removed from females because data collected prior to 2005 suggested that few females
would be captured during the 2005 sample season. Dentaries have been used by other
researchers to age paddlefish (Adams 1965; Reed et al. 1992; Hoxmeier and DeVries
1997), but dentaries were not used in this study because doing so would have required the
sacrifice of a large number of fish from a population of unknown size. Instead, pectoral
fin rays were removed from male fish prior to their release. Pectoral fin rays have been
used to age other acipenseriforms, and removal of pectoral fin rays from shortnose and
Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum and A. oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) does not affect
growth or survival (Collins and Smith 1996). Paddlefish pectoral fin rays were removed
approximately 2 mm distal from the body using wire cutters. Cutting fin rays closer to
the body resulted in heavy bleeding. Fin rays were dried overnight at room temperature
in scale envelopes before storing in a freezer. Five-minute epoxy was used to coat the
pectoral fin rays before sectioning to prevent the rays from slippage during sectioning.
The epoxy-covered fin rays were folded in paper and allowed to cure for at least one hour
before sectioning to 500 µm width using an Isomet low-speed saw and diamond wafering
blade manufactured by Buehler, Inc. (Evanston, Illinois).
One to three sections per sample were mounted between two 1.1-mm wide glass
microscope slides and sequentially numbered. A single reader blindly selected and read
45
each of the slides three times under a Leica S8APO stereoscope (Leica Microsystems,
Inc., Buffalo, New York) at approximately 78 X magnification. Distance between the
focus and each annulus was measured to 0.01 mm during the second and third reading
using an ocular micrometer. If the reader assigned the same age to a given section in at
least two of the three readings, that age was considered correct. A similar system was
used by Hoxmeier and DeVries (1997) to age paddlefish from the Alabama River using
dentaries. The presence of halo bands (false annuli) in dentaries from paddlefish in the
southern portion of their range coupled with the long growing season makes age
determination difficult; precision has not been quantified for any ageing method.
The Fraser-Lee method of back-calculation was used to generate mean lengths-at-age
for male paddlefish after determining the intercept parameter a (DeVries and Frie 1996).
The intercept parameter was calculated through linear regression of 110 measurements of
pectoral fin ray radius and EFL at time of sampling. In addition to male paddlefish used
for ageing, juvenile paddlefish caught in Demopolis Lake, juvenile paddlefish spawned
from Demopolis Lake broodstock in ponds, and post-larval paddlefish raised from wild-
spawned Demopolis Lake and Noxubee River eggs were used to ensure representation of
all size classes. Regression was performed using SAS Version 8.2 (SAS Institute, Inc.
2001).
Mean lengths-at-age were calculated separately for male paddlefish in Twelvemile
Bend and the flowing bendway and used to generate von Bertalanffy growth curves
(Busacker et al. 1990). Von Bertalanffy parameters (L∞, K, and t0) and approximate 95%
confidence intervals were calculated using all age groups present in both habitats using
46
Proc Nlin in SAS Version 8.2 (SAS Institute, Inc. 2001). Confidence intervals
overlapped, so the two habitats were considered components of the same population, and
mean lengths-at-age were calculated using combined data to generate a von Bertalanffy
curve for Demopolis Lake using the above method.
A catch curve was generated by using the von Bertalanffy curve to assign ages to
male paddlefish that were inconsistently aged or not sampled for ageing during 2005; and
including these values with ages-at-capture for fish consistently aged using methods
described above. Mortality was determined using Heincke’s method and the slope of the
descending limb of the log-transformed catch curve (Ricker 1975).
Potential Limiting Factors
Demopolis Lake Spawning Habitat
Wild-spawned paddlefish eggs were sampled in the flowing bendway of Demopolis
Lake (Figure 3) using artificial substrates similar to those used to sample sturgeon eggs
(McCabe and Beckman 1990; Marchant and Shutters 1996). Artificial substrates
consisted of latex-coated hog hair filter material 63.5 cm wide by 2.54 cm deep. The
material was wrapped smooth side down around a 63.5 cm square angle iron frame such
that both sides of the frame were covered with the artificial substrate. Material was
attached to frames using nuts and bolts. Washers were used to prevent material from
slipping off bolts as holes in the material wore wider with use.
Frames were fastened to anchors with ropes and swivels to prevent twist in the
current. Anchors consisted of scrap iron pieces from 9 to 23 kg. Float lines of 15 to 30
47
m long and 1 cm diameter were attached to anchors with a swivel. Most float lines were
attached to bullet-shaped floats 35 cm long and 13.5 cm diameter, but others were tied to
riparian vegetation including overhanging limbs and exposed roots.
Artificial substrates were deployed on shallow (<3 m deep at 50% exceedance) gravel
bars where paddlefish were expected to spawn and at deeper sites (>3 m deep at 50%
exceedance) where substrate consisted of gravel or bedrock (Figure 4). Sampling began
on February 28, 2005, and concluded on April 25, 2005. Three to 12 artificial substrates
were sampling effectively (i.e., deployed and retrievable) in the flowing bendway of
Demopolis Lake at any given time during this period. One artificial substrate was
deployed in the Noxubee River near the mouth of Bodka Creek from April 9 to April 13,
2005. Individual substrates were deployed for 4- to 8-day intervals when possible.
Upon retrieval, artificial substrates were examined for the presence of large (3-4 mm),
grey, adhesive eggs (Ross 2001). Eggs of this description were removed by cutting the
strands of hair to which they were attached and preserved in 80% ethanol or transported
to aerated tanks for hatching. Hatched larvae were preserved in 80% ethanol upon death.
Periphyton, detritus, and fine substrates that accumulated on artificial substrates were
removed by thorough rinsing before substrate redeployment.
Water temperature was measured at 0.5 m below the surface on all sample dates using
a Model 85 Yellow Springs Instrument (YSI, Inc., Yellow Springs, Ohio). Water
velocity was measured at 0.5 m below the surface using a Flo-Mate (Marsh-McBirney,
Inc., Frederick, Maryland) at successful sample sites (i.e., those at which at least one
paddlefish egg was captured) on April 6 and April 13, 2005. Water level was determined
48
using provisional stream gage height data (subject to change until published) available
online from the United States Geological Survey (USGS 2005).
In addition to using artificial substrates to monitor spawning activity through time, all
paddlefish captured for stock assessment were examined for evidence of spawning
activity. Male paddlefish were checked for flowing milt and female paddlefish were
examined to determine prespawn vs. postspawn condition (no females were depositing
eggs at the time of capture). Prespawn condition was indicated by turgid abdomen and,
particularly in large specimens, a swollen urogenital opening through which eggs could
be felt by inserting a finger. Postspawn condition was indicated by flaccid abdomen
and/or puckered and sunken appearance of skin around an inflamed urogenital opening.
Spring Flow Duration and Timing
A substantial increase in discharge is needed at the appropriate time of year to induce
spawning behavior in paddlefish (Purkett 1961; Alexander and McDonough 1983;
Russell 1986). To investigate effects of discharge patterns on Demopolis Lake paddlefish
spawning and recruitment, three response variables collected using previously described
methods were used: 1) artificial substrates to collect naturally-spawned eggs during 2005;
2) female paddlefish collected during 2004 and 2005 and examined for evidence of pre-
ovulating, ovulating, or postspawn condition; 3) residuals from the descending limb of
the catch curve for male paddlefish caught during 2005 were used to indicate historic
year-class strength.
49
Provisional gage-height data (USGS 2005) from a gauging station below Helfin Dam
were used to calculate exceedance values and determine the number of days during which
gage height indicated a river level 2.74 m above 50% exceedance. The 2.74-m
benchmark was initially chosen because Purkett (1961) noted paddlefish spawning
activity following a 2.74-m rise in water level on the Osage River. Water temperature
between 10 and 17° C and correct photoperiod for a given latitude also are thought to be
necessary to induce paddlefish spawning (Hubert et al. 1984). Data from the Cahaba and
Tallapoosa rivers (Alabama) support the suggested water temperature requirement and
indicate that paddlefish at latitudes similar to those addressed in this study spawn
between mid-March and mid-May (Lein and DeVries 1998). In light of this information,
and observations of Demopolis Lake paddlefish addressed later in the discussion, number
of days above the calculated gage height was determined for the period of April 1-May 1
during 2004, and 2005 to provide a rough estimate of the number of days during each
year in which conditions were ideal for paddlefish spawning. This number will be
referred to as the spawning suitability index (SSI). Capture of post-spawn females during
2004 and 2005 were compared and related to SSI. Numbers of wild-spawned eggs
captured during 2005 were related to the proposed criteria for verification.
Catch-curve residuals were used as indicators of year-class strength. They were
then related to SSI values. These values differed from those discussed above because
tailrace data were not available prior to 1999 (USGS 2005). The SSI calculations used in
year-class interpretation were based upon gage heights at two locations: (1) the
Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway above Heflin Dam, and (2) the Noxubee River at
50
Geiger, Alabama (USGS 2005). Linear regression was used to model the relationship
between natural-log transformed SSI and catch-curve residual using Proc Reg in SAS
Version 8.2 (SAS Institute, Inc. 2001). Transformed SSI values resulted in greater R2
values and lesser P values than raw SSI values, indicating better fit.
Habitat Use and Availability
Radio telemetry was used to assess paddlefish habitat use. Most transmitters
contained an internal loop antenna, weighed 40 or 145 g in air, ranged from 30.000 to
31.999 MHz, and were manufactured by Advanced Telemetry Systems (ATS), Inc.
(Isanti, Minnesota). Two transmitters weighed 35 g and were manufactured by the now-
defunct company Custom Telemetry. Transmitters were surgically implanted using
techniques similar to those described by Hart and Summerfelt (1975). Prior to surgery,
instruments and transmitters were sterilized using ethanol. During surgery, paddlefish
were kept moist using damp towels and nylon mesh. Gills were aerated continuously
with a pump. An incision of approximately 5 cm in length was made through the skin
and ventral musculature. The transmitter was inserted and the wound was closed using a
simple interrupted suture pattern. Paddlefish were docile throughout surgery and
recovered quickly. Fish were relocated using a loop antenna and a R2000 scanning
receiver from ATS.
Twenty-seven radio-tagged paddlefish were used to assess habitat use in Demopolis
Lake. These were broken into two groups: fish that wintered in the flowing bendway and
those that wintered in Twelvemile Bend. Throughout 2004, eleven fish from the flowing
51
bendway group were at large. Prior to beginning telemetry efforts in 2005, three of these
fish could not be located because of transmitter battery death or (possibly) emigration.
One additional radio-tagged fish was added to the flowing bendway group before the
2005 season to bring the number of fish at large to nine, whereas fifteen fish comprised
the Twelvemile Bend group during 2005.
On each sample date, the entire flowing bendway or Twelvemile Bend was searched
at least twice: once during daylight hours, and once during the crepuscular period or at
night. The number of fish found in the habitat of interest on each date was compared to
the expected number of fish found there under the assumption of random distribution
throughout the area of ‘available habitat’. In the event that an individual fish was found
in two different habitats on a given date, the habitat it was first located in was used.
The area of available habitat (1,357 ha) was defined as the Tombigbee Arm of
Demopolis Lake from Howell Heflin Lock and Dam downstream to Demopolis Lock and
Dam. Given observed movement rates up to 2 km/h for juveniles (Roush et al. 2003) and
4 km/h for adults (Paukert and Fisher 2000), paddlefish could redistribute throughout the
area of Demopolis Lake they were found in (90.7 km long) between sample dates.
Nearly unlimited habitats outside the defined available habitat were within reach of
paddlefish through the two years of the study. Paddlefish could access the entire Mobile
and Mississippi river drainages via locks in addition to Demopolis Lake tributaries.
‘Available habitat’ is therefore a minimum estimate used to calculate expected
frequencies of paddlefish in the flowing bendway and Twelvemile Bend. The flowing
52
bendway constitutes 6.866% of available habitat and Twelvemile Bend constitutes
13.261%.
Expected frequencies for each habitat were calculated by multiplying number of fish
at large for a given group by the percentage of available habitat represented by the
flowing bendway and Twelvemile Bend. For each sample date, observed frequencies
were compared to expected frequencies to determine significant nonrandom habitat use.
Chi-squared goodness-of-fit has been used with such data, but the low expected
frequencies encountered in Demopolis Lake did not allow use of a chi-squared test
(Heath 1995). Consequently, SAS Version 8.2 software (SAS Institute, Inc. 2001) was
used to perform a Monte Carlo (Kalos and Whitlock 1986) analog to the chi-squared test
(Appendix A). Random proportions for each fish-at-large on a given date were generated.
If the proportion for a given randomly-behaving fish was less than or equal to the ratio of
target habitat to total available habitat, that fish was considered present in the target
habitat. Number of fish-at-large randomly present in the target habitat was thus
calculated. Ten million iterations were performed with each observed frequency to
calculate the probability of observing an equal or more extreme result by chance. If the
resulting probability was less than α (0.05), the observed frequency of habitat use was
considered significantly non-random.
Columbus Lake Translocation
Using methods discussed above, twelve paddlefish were implanted with radio
transmitters after being used as broodstock at Private John Allen Fish Hatchery (Tupelo,
53
Mississippi). Four of these fish were released near their place of capture in the flowing
bendway of Demopolis Lake (Figure 3) and the remaining eight were translocated to
Columbus Lake (Figure 2), where they were released near the tailrace of Aberdeen Lock
and Dam. The purpose of this experiment was to compare habitat and food resources
used by paddlefish in the two lakes and assess movement past lock and dam structures.
Attempts were made to locate paddlefish in Columbus and Demopolis lakes once per
week from June 4 to July 7, 2005 whenever possible. Additional days were spent
searching adjacent impoundments for paddlefish that moved through locks or dams.
Because the four paddlefish released in Demopolis Lake were not located during the
June-July study period, ten paddlefish radio-tagged in conjunction with the previously
described habitat use study were used to sample the Demopolis Lake population.
At each daytime paddlefish location, water depth, temperature, conductivity, and
presence or absence of a visible surface eddy at the location were recorded. Zooplankton
was sampled with 63-µm mesh net using vertical tows after sunset at locations where
paddlefish were relocated and in tailraces. Samples were preserved in a 4%
formaldehyde solution and dyed with Rose Bengal. Copepods and cladocerans were
counted and identified using 20X magnification. Rotifers were subsampled and counted
using 250X magnification.
Water depth, temperature, and conductivity at locations used by paddlefish in
Demopolis Lake were compared to locations used by paddlefish in Columbus Lake using
two sample t tests (Heath 1995). Eddy use was compared between the two lakes using a
two sample t test (Heath 1995). Zooplankton density, cladoceran density, and copepod
54
density were compared between paddlefish locations at the two lakes during the two time
periods in which >1 paddlefish was located in Columbus Lake (early June and late-
June/early-July) using Mann-Whitney U tests (Heath 1995). An α of 0.05 was used for
these hypothesis tests.
Site Fidelity
Columbus Lake Translocation
Paddlefish translocated to Columbus Lake for use in the previously described study
were relocated when possible to monitor movement through locks and dams and to
record incidents of movement toward initial capture location in Demopolis Lake.
Oktoc Creek Translocation
Two male paddlefish radio-tagged in 2003 were captured at Noxubee National
Wildlife Refuge from Oktoc Creek (a distributary of Noxubee River) at the radial gate
spillway below Bluff Lake. These fish were transported to Private John Allen Fish
Hatchery to be used as broodstock. No females were caught during spring 2003, so these
fish were subsequently released in Demopolis Lake near the mouth of the Noxubee River.
The fish were not released in Oktoc Creek because low summer water levels may prevent
emigration and fish kills are common due to low oxygen. A third male paddlefish was
captured at the radial gate spillway, radio-tagged, and immediately released at the
spillway on March 31, 2004. Both spillways below Bluff Lake were monitored through
December 2005 to record incidences of return to this location of initial capture.
55
Demopolis Lake Radio Telemetry
Multiple response permutation procedure (MRPP) was used to test for seasonal site
fidelity (Kernohan et al. 2001) in radio-tagged Demopolis Lake paddlefish. Each
paddlefish which was located a minimum of four times per season in consecutive years
was used in this analysis. Seasons included winter (December through March 5), spring
(March 9 through April 23), and summer (April 25 through June). Eight paddlefish were
located at least four times in one or more seasons during both 2004 and 2005. Two were
females, four were males, and two were of unknown gender.
The MRPP statistic (T) is based on within-group distances (McCune and Grace
2002). Intuitively, distance between locations must therefore be measured such that fish
traveling between two locations that are measured as being close to one another must
move less than fish traveling between two locations that are measured as being farther
apart. Due to the sinuosity of Demopolis Lake, measuring location with latitude and
longitude would not be suitable. Instead, each paddlefish location was measured in terms
of its distance along the historic Tombigbee River from Howell Heflin Dam (y) and its
distance from the right bank of the river if looking upstream (x). For paddlefish located
in the Noxubee River (which flows into the historic Tombigbee River 3,835 m
downstream from Heflin Dam from the left bank), the y coordinate is 3,835 and the x
coordinate is the distance traveled up the Noxubee River plus the width of the Tombigbee
at the mouth of the Noxubee River. Euclidian distance was used in MRPP calculations
(McCune and Grace 2002), which were performed using PC-ORD Version 4 (MjM
Software, Gleneden Beach, Oregon). Site fidelity was indicated by P values greater than
56
α (0.05), representing no significant difference between paddlefish locations in
consecutive years.
Stocking Program Design and Monitoring
Two stocking protocols were devised and tested. One involved stocking juvenile
paddlefish into natural oxbows and anthropogenic gravel pits at a rate of 20 per surface
hectare. These small lacustrine environments were adjacent to tributaries of Columbus
Lake (Buttahatchie River or Tibbee Creek) and isolated from lotic environments at base
flow. This protocol was devised to minimize post-stocking emigration, provide young
paddlefish with a potentially food-rich environment, and allow for the possibility of
imprinting on areas accessible to adult paddlefish only via streams which contain the best
available spawning habitat.
The second protocol involved the more commonly used procedure: stocking juvenile
paddlefish at a lesser density (1.1 per ha) into a mainstem environment. Fish were
stocked at Barton’s Ferry public access, which was chosen because of its considerable
distance from Aberdeen Lock and Dam and John C. Stennis Lock and Dam. This
protocol had the advantage of simpler logistics. Large numbers of paddlefish can be
stocked at one time in the large (3,606 ha) mainstem impoundment, whereas stocking
multiple small (1.6-13.3 ha) floodplain lakes requires multiple trips from the hatchery and
permission from local landowners.
Juvenile paddlefish were stocked in the mainstem and in four floodplain lakes
between June 26 and June 28, 2005. All stocked paddlefish were spawned artificially
57
from Demopolis Lake broodstock at Private John Allen National Fish Hatchery in
Tupelo, Mississippi. Paddlefish were raised in raceways in either Mammoth Springs
National Fish Hatchery in Mammoth Springs, Arkansas, or at Private John Allen National
Fish Hatchery. Due to cooler water temperature at Mammoth Springs, paddlefish reared
in the Arkansas hatchery were smaller than those raised in Mississippi (mean 25 g and
117 mm EFL vs. 60 g and 152 mm EFL). The 2,866 paddlefish from Mammoth Springs
were stocked in the mainstem at Barton’s Ferry whereas the 1,781 paddlefish from
Private John Allen were stocked at Barton’s Ferry and in four floodplain lakes. All
paddlefish received a coded wire tag (CWT) manufactured by Northwest Marine
Technologies (Shaw Island, Washington) prior to release.
To evaluate emigration and survival, 49 juvenile paddlefish reared at Private John
Allen National Fish Hatchery were implanted with radio transmitters. The mainstem of
Columbus Lake received 29 radio-tagged paddlefish whereas Fortson Lake and Pit 21
(Figure 2) each received ten radio-tagged fish. Radio transmitters bore whip-style
antennae, weighed 1.2 g in air, broadcasted at frequencies between 30.000 and 31.999
MHz, and were manufactured by ATS.
Transmitters of such diminutive dimensions were not available with a mortality
option. Determination of survival was therefore contingent upon interpretation of
successive locations for an individual fish. A baseline for comparison was established by
repeatedly locating a submerged transmitter hidden by a second party. Three locations
were recorded using GPS before retrieving the hidden transmitter. This procedure was
repeated and a 95% confidence interval was constructed using the difference between the
58
actual transmitter location and the attempted locations. Thus, it was determined that 95%
of locations were within 20.6 m of the actual transmitter location. Therefore, if
successive locations for a given paddlefish were within 20.6 m of each other the fish was
considered dead. Of course, differences greater than 20.6 m did not necessarily indicate a
living fish. Swift current (especially at the tailrace) could have compromised accuracy.
Additionally, paddlefish could have been consumed by large predators, and currents or
turbulence from navigational traffic could have moved dead fish or transmitters. Because
of these possibilities, differences >20.6 m but <60 m were sometimes considered
indicative of mortality in light of environmental conditions.
Attempts were made to locate each tagged paddlefish a minimum of one time per
week during each of the four weeks following stocking. Emigration was calculated as the
proportion of paddlefish transmitters not located during the fourth week. Survival was
calculated as the proportion of non-emigrant transmitters present in paddlefish considered
alive using the above criteria. Standard error for emigration and survival proportions (P)
were calculated using the formula: SE=√(P-(1-P))/(n-1). The chi-squared test for
independence was used to compare survival and emigration between habitats (Heath
1995).
At each paddlefish location in Columbus Lake, depth was recorded and a YSI Model
85 or Model 30 was used to measure temperature, specific conductance, and (prior to
equipment failure during the fourth week) dissolved oxygen 0.5 m beneath the surface.
When daylight permitted, Secchi depth was recorded.
59
In Fortson Lake and Pit 21, similar parameters were recorded at three fixed stations
on each sample date. Due to small size and relative homogeneity, all paddlefish in these
environments were assumed to experience the same conditions. Mainstem environments
were sampled for abiotic parameters in the following manner. Three macrohabitats were
identified: navigation channel, bendway, and tailrace. The navigation channel was
broken into 1 km long segments and three were chosen randomly for sampling each
week. Three of sixteen bendways also were sampled randomly weekly. Due to limited
area and heavy current, the tailrace was sampled in duplicate at fixed sites. Other
Columbus Lake macrohabitats (tributary streams, wetlands, canals, and flats <1 m deep)
were not sampled due to logistic constraints.
60
CHAPTER III
RESULTS
Distribution and Stock Assessment
Historical Information
Although paddlefish were known to exist in the Mississippi component of Tombigbee
River prior to the late 1950s, no museum specimens exist and no records of capture have
been found in the literature. Demopolis Lake, Alabama, is the only impoundment on the
entire waterway from which records of paddlefish capture have been located by the
author (Mettee et al. 1996). Paddlefish also are present in the Noxubee River, a
Demopolis Lake tributary which originates in Mississippi (Mettee et al. 1996; Ross
2001). Historic effort in Mississippi portion of the TTW and its tributaries includes over
4,351 hoop net sets, 90 acres of rotenone application, and 373.5 hours of electrofishing as
well as seine pulls at over 87 sites and 583 larval fish light trap nights (from Mississippi
Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks {MDWFP} data summarized by O’Keefe et
al. 2004). In the literature that was reviewed, only 31 gill net nights were recorded.
These nets were set before the completion of the waterway between 1978 and 1980
(Schultz 1981). Although MDWFP records did not mention the capture of any
61
paddlefish, their sampling efforts did not begin until 1978. Construction of the waterway
began in December of 1970.
Published records do not verify presence of paddlefish in the mainstem of the historic
Tombigbee River or present-day TTW, but paddlefish were recorded in a tributary of
what is now Columbus Lake, Mississippi. A single record of paddlefish occurrence in
the lower Buttahatchie River was reported by Mettee et al. (1996). This specimen was
collected in July of 1971 where US Highway 45 crosses the river in Lowndes County,
Mississippi (T16S, R18W, Sec 16). Boschung (1989) reported the occurrence of
paddlefish prior to 1980 in the Buttahatchie River near Coulumbus Air Force Base in
Lowndes County, Mississippi (T16S, R18W, Sec 19). Both published records of
paddlefish in the Buttahatchie River came from an area where floodplain gravel mining
operations intensified in the late 1970s. Present-day habitat consists of an unstable
gravel-bottomed channel and a series of flooded gravel pits.
Informal conversations with commercial fishermen, anglers, local residents, and
others along the waterway revealed tales of ‘spoonbill catfish’ in Mississippi waters of
the TTW and pre-waterway Tombigbee River. According to a former commercial
fisherman who occasionally caught paddlefish in hoop nets during the 1970s, a snag
fishery once existed during spring at the mouth of Buttahatchie River. An Air Force
retiree spoke of one small paddlefish he found dead below Stennis Lock and Dam in
Columbus, Mississippi, “a couple of years ago.” Others remembered seeing paddlefish
swimming near the surface of the Tombigbee River before construction of the waterway
with their rostrums out of the water (a sign of distress). Several people witnessed the
62
harvesting of paddlefish stranded in a pool during the construction of Stennis Lock and
Dam. In Bigbee, Mississippi, local residents historically participated in a snag fishery for
paddlefish at one of the many gravel pits that exist near the East Fork of the Tombigbee
River. These fish probably entered the gravel pits early in life. Reports indicated that no
paddlefish have been taken from the Bigbee gravel pits since 2000.
W. D. Criddle is a commercial fisherman from Columbus, Mississippi, who has
fished the area since 1974. Mr. Criddle mentioned that he had heard that paddlefish were
common long before 1974, and that they had declined due to industrial pollution. Former
commercial fisherman James Barksdale was kind enough to provide photographic
evidence of a 17.3-kg female paddlefish taken in a gill net set near Pratt Camp in
Aliceville Lake, Mississippi, “approximately 4 years ago” (ca. 2001). He reported that
Gene Sullivan, another local commercial fisherman, caught a smaller paddlefish a few
weeks later in Aliceville Lake, Mississippi, at the mouth of Cedar Creek.
The best evidence to date of historically strong paddlefish presence in the Mississippi
portion of the Tombigbee River and its tributaries comes from photographs and firsthand
reports of Clark Young (West Point, Mississippi), who documented the capture of 44
adult paddlefish in one night of fishing in Fortson Lake, an 7.3-hectare backwater lake off
of Tibbee Creek on which his family built a cabin in 1923 (Figure 2; Figure 5). Mr.
Young reported that breaching paddlefish were a common sight before he joined the
Army in 1954 and that he has not seen or heard of paddlefish being taken from Fortson
Lake since his return in 1956. The lake was poisoned with rotenone to remove nongame
fish in 2003 and no paddlefish were found. Several fish kills occurred in Tibbee Creek
63
due to pollution from industry in the upstream city of West Point prior to the mid-1960s.
This may have impacted paddlefish populations in the Tombigbee watershed (Clark
Young and Betsy Lott, West Point, Mississippi, personal communication).
Distribution and Relative Abundance
During 2003 and 2004, 374 gill nets were set in the river section of the TTW and its
tributaries to determine paddlefish distribution. This count includes net sets at fixed
locations (N = 192) and net sets at supplemental locations (N = 182). Mean soak time at
fixed locations was 258 min (SD = 103 min). Twenty-nine paddlefish were captured
from Demopolis Lake, Alabama, and two from Gainesville Lake, Alabama, during
sampling at fixed locations. Both fish captured in Gainesville Lake were juveniles (470
and 594 mm EFL). No paddlefish were captured in the Mississippi portion of the TTW,
which includes Columbus Lake and most of Aliceville Lake. During sampling at fixed
locations, catch-per-unit-effort was zero at all sites other than the Demopolis Lake
tailrace and bendway sites and the Gainesville Lake bendway site (Table 1).
Only one paddlefish was captured during supplemental netting in the mainstem of the
TTW from April, 2003 to February, 2004. This fish was taken from a gravel pit at the
mouth of an unnamed tributary to Gainesville Lake (Figure 2). Low catch rates during
supplemental netting suggest that fixed sites represented prime paddlefish habitat.
Twenty net sets were recorded in Oktoc Creek below Bluff Lake spillways. Two
mature male paddlefish were captured during 2003, two mature males were captured
during 2004 (one a recapture from 2003), and one mature male was captured in 2005. A
64
mature female and juvenile male were found dead on July 6, 2005 following a fish kill
caused by reduced water level in Bluff Lake and subsequent lack of flow over the
overflow spillway, which resulted in oxygen depletion. Supplemental netting in the
Buttahatchie River, Luxapalila Creek, James Creek, and McCower’s Creek did not
produce any paddlefish (Figure 2).
Demopolis Lake Population Estimate
During the 2003-2004 marking period, 34 paddlefish were marked in the flowing
bendway of Demopolis Lake. Of 24 fish checked for marks at this location in 2004, three
were previously tagged. The estimated population size was 220 gear-recruited paddlefish
in the flowing bendway during spring 2004 with a 95% confidence interval of 90 to 548
paddlefish.
During the 2004-2005 marking period, 176 paddlefish were marked in the flowing
bendway and Twelvemile Bend. Of 99 fish checked for marks at these sites during the
2005 recapture period, four were marked. The estimated population size was 3,541 gear-
recruited paddlefish in Demopolis Lake (excluding the Black Warrior Arm) during spring
2005, with a 95% confidence interval of 1,581 to 8,851 paddlefish. This represents a
density of 2.6 paddlefish/ha with a 95% confidence interval of 1.2 to 6.5 paddlefish/ha in
Demopolis Lake during 2005. Density in the flowing bendway during 2004 was
comparable based on the above estimates, which yield a 95% confidence interval of 0.96
to 5.9 paddlefish/ha.
65
Demopolis Lake Population Characteristics
Net sets recorded during the 2003, 2004, and 2005 sample seasons totaled 18, 72, and
108, respectively. Soak time averaged 194 min across years (SD = 130 min). During
2003, 29 paddlefish were captured in Demopolis Lake, although only six of these were
taken during the spring sampling season for stock assessment. Sixty-three paddlefish
were captured from Demopolis Lake during the 2004 season and 267 were captured
during the 2005 season. A single bighead carp (Hypophthalmichthys nobilis) was found
dead in Demopolis Lake during 2004 and two were captured in gill nets during 2005.
The bighead carp is an introduced zooplanktivore which may compete with paddlefish for
food resources (Schrank and Guy 2003).
Paddlefish caught in Demopolis Lake ranged from 601 to 1095 mm EFL. No
paddlefish ≥ memorable size (1040 mm EFL) were captured during 2003 or 2004. Five
females of memorable size were captured during 2005, although no fish ≥ trophy size
(1300 mm EFL) were taken during the course of the study. Relative stock density (RSD)
values for quality, preferred, memorable, and trophy fish during 2005 were 99, 73, 2, and
0, respectively.
Multifilament gill nets of differing mesh size did not catch paddlefish with
significantly different length distributions (χ2 test for independence P = 0.059; Figure 6).
Average eye-to-fork length for paddlefish caught in 101.6-, 127.0-, and 152.4-mm bar
mesh was 846, 869, and 870, respectively. Male paddlefish in Twelvemile Bend
exhibited a different length distribution than males in the flowing bendway (χ2 test for
independence P = 0.046; Figure 7), with smaller size classes being more common and
66
larger size classes being comparatively rare in Twelvemile Bend. Females did not exhibit
a significant difference in length distribution between habitats (χ2 test for independence
P=0.126; Figure 7). Year did not affect length distribution of males in the flowing
bendway (χ2 test for independence P=0.746).
The sex ratio was highly skewed during 2004 and 2005 in the flowing bendway (χ2
test for goodness-of-fit P < 0.001 in each year), with males outnumbering females more
than 2:1. In Twelvemile Bend, the sex ratio differed from 50:50 (χ2 test for goodness-of-
fit P = 0.023), with females outnumbering males 3:2. Twelvemile Bend and flowing
bendway sex ratios differed significantly (χ2 test for independence P < 0.001) during
2005.
Mean gender-specific relative weight was 82 for males and females during winter
2004 and 78 during 2005. Neither female nor male paddlefish (two sample t tests P >
0.05) relative weight was affected by season in 2004. During 2005, habitat and the
interaction between habitat and season did not affect female or male Wr (two factor
ANOVAs P > 0.05). However, the main effect of season was significant during 2005 for
males (P = 0.007) and females (P > 0.001). During 2005, male relative weight dropped
to 75 and female relative weight dropped to 72 during the post-spawn summer period.
The relationship between pectoral fin radius (r, in tens of microns) and paddlefish
length (EFL, in mm) was determined through linear regression, giving the equation
EFL=7.25r+52 (R2 = 0.963; P < 0.001). The y-axis intercept (52 mm) was used in Fraser-
Lee back-calculation of lengths-at-age to determine growth rate; which is described by
the equation Lt = 971.8 [1 − e−0.2844 (t+0.6962)]. This equation predicts lengths-at-age (in
67
mm) of 372(I), 520(II), 632(III), 716(IV), 779(V), 827(VI), 863(VII), 890(VIII), 910(IX),
925(X), 937(XI), and 946(XII). Actual mean values for ages III and older were within
2% of predicted values. Of 80 pectoral fin samples taken from male paddlefish, 57 were
used in back-calculation. Fin rays were not used if 1) ages did not agree in two of three
ageing attempts, 2) fin regrowth or damage was evident, or 3) a lumen formed at the
focus of the rays.
The catch curve (Figure 8) indicated that male paddlefish recruited to the gear at age
VII. Paddlefish of age XI and over were not considered in further analysis because of
small sample size (< 5; Ricker 1975) at given ages and questionable validity of
extrapolating beyond the age of the oldest aged fish (age XII). The descending limb of
the catch curve (age VII to X) yielded an annual mortality rate (A) of 0.406 and
Heincke’s method produced a comparable annual mortality rate of 0.382. Frequency of
paddlefish in each age group was not adequately explained by the predicted mortality rate
alone (linear regression R2=0.753, P=0.132), indicating differential year-class strength.
Potential Limiting Factors
Demopolis Lake Spawning Habitat
Fertilized paddlefish eggs were collected from artificial substrates in Demopolis Lake
on three dates (March 30, April 6, April 16) during 2005 (Figure 9). Of 106 paddlefish
eggs collected from Demopolis Lake, 95% were taken on either April 6 or April 16.
Water temperature was 18.0°C on April 6 and 19.4°C on April 16. Spawned-out females
were captured on April 16 and May 6 in the flowing bendway and on April 22 and May
68
10 in Twelvemile Bend (Figure 9). Males began flowing milt on March 9, and 100% of
mature males were flowing on all but one sample date from March 9 until April 20. The
only artificial substrate set in the Noxubee River captured nine paddlefish eggs in four
days and was retrieved on April 13.
Paddlefish eggs were collected under a wide variety of depth, substrate, and velocity
conditions. Successful egg traps (Figure 10) were set at depths of 1.2 to 7.7 m at 50%
exceedance, representing the full range of depths sampled. Eggs were collected over
gravel and bedrock substrate. High flow deposited coarse sand over some gravel
substrates during the study. One paddlefish egg collected from the Noxubee River
hatched successfully despite the sand grains that covered it completely. On April 6,
water velocity ranged from 0.39 to 1.06 m/s at successful sites in Demopolis Lake. On
April 13, water velocity at the successful site in the Noxubee River was 0.99 m/s.
High discharge between April 6 and April 16 submerged floats and terrestrial tie-off
points of artificial substrates, making it impossible to examine artificial substrates during
this period. Five artificial substrates were retrieved on April 16, two of which were
deeply buried in gravel and sand and free of eggs. These were not considered to be
effectively sampling between April 6 and April 16 to determine percentage of successful
effectively sampling substrates. Two others were partially covered with substrate and
contained one or two eggs. These were considered to be effectively sampling, as were
other partially impacted sampling devices examined on other dates. The only unimpacted
substrate retrieved on April 16 contained 19 paddlefish eggs. All artificial substrates not
69
tied to terrestrial vegetation shifted position significantly due to high water, washing into
locations 1.39 to 6.57 m deeper than original locations.
Spring Flow Duration and Timing
Number of days between April 1 and May 1 in which gage height below Heflin Dam
was 2.74 m above 50% exceedance was calculated for each sample season as a potential
indicator of paddlefish spawning success. During 2004, zero days met these criteria,
though nine days of ideal discharge occurred in early March, when water temperature
(14.8-16.4°C) also appeared ideal. During February, March, and April, 2004, many of
the male paddlefish captured below Heflin Dam in Demopolis Lake, Alabama, were
running milt. Many females captured during this time had swollen abdomens, red
swelling around the urogenital pore, and eggs that could be felt through the oviduct. No
females were found flowing eggs or with sunken abdomens during 2004, which would
have indicated ovulating or postspawn condition and the occurrence of spawning activity
(Lein and DeVries 1998). Female paddlefish captured as late as April 23, 2004 at a water
temperature of 19.7°C had not released their eggs.
During 2005, thirteen days met the criteria for gage height and photoperiod. Ninety-
five percent of wild-spawned eggs found on artificial substrates in the flowing bendway
were collected following dates that met proposed criteria. It should be noted that
sampling effort and efficiency were less during high water due to loss of artificial
substrates and sand and gravel deposition. Water temperature reached 19.4°C during
peak spawning activity (Figure 9).
70
Catch-curve residuals for male paddlefish were not strongly related to log-
transformed SSI values calculated from gage heights in the flowing bendway (linear
regression P = 0.527; b = −0.366; R2 = 0.753). The negative slope value indicates that
ideal spawning conditions in the TTW may negatively affect the contribution of a year-
class to future standing stock in Demopolis Lake. Log-transformed SSI values calculated
from gage height in the Noxubee River at Geiger, Alabama, was conversely a strong
descriptor of catch curve residuals (linear regression P=0.089; b=0.369; R2=0.830). The
positive slope indicates a direct relationship between number of ideal spawning days on
the Noxubee River in a given year and the year-class contribution to future Demopolis
Lake standing stock.
Habitat Use and Availability
Paddlefish that wintered in the flowing bendway group selected flowing bendway
habitat on 36 of 37 sample dates (α = 0.05; Figure 11). On April 2, 2005 paddlefish from
this group neither selected nor avoided the flowing bendway. Paddlefish that wintered in
Twelvemile Bend showed selection for Twelvemile Bend on 11 of 13 sample dates (α =
0.05; Figure 11). On March 25 and April 2, 2005 they showed neither selection nor
avoidance.
Columbus Lake Translocation
Weekly measurements of environmental variables at locations occupied by paddlefish
in Columbus Lake were compared to those of Demopolis Lake between June 4 and July
7, 2005 (Table 2). Paddlefish in Columbus Lake used significantly shallower (two
71
sample t test P<0.05) water with lesser conductivity (two sample t test P<0.05) than fish
in Demopolis Lake. Surface water temperature use and use of eddy habitat did not differ
between lakes. Total zooplankton, cladoceran, and copepod densities were greater at
Demopolis Lake paddlefish locations than at Columbus Lake paddlefish locations (Mann-
Whitney U tests P<0.05) during early June and late-June/early-July. Tailrace total
zooplankton, cladoceran, and copepod densities also were greater in Demopolis Lake
(Mann-Whitney U tests P<0.05). Three exotic zooplankters (Daphnia lumholtzi,
Leptodora kindtii, and Mysis relicta) were identified in samples.
Site Fidelity
Columbus Lake Translocation
Three of the eight fish translocated to Columbus Lake died or shed their transmitters.
One of these and two of the survivors made their way downstream through three locks
and dams back to their lake of original capture (i.e., Demopolis Lake). One translocated
fish also was recorded passing upstream through Aberdeen Lock or Dam. Of the four
fish treated identically to the translocated fish and released into Demopolis Lake, all
survived and none were recorded passing through lock-and-dam structures. Twenty-four
other adult paddlefish tagged and released in Demopolis Lake or Oktoc Creek similarly
suffered no observed mortality and were not recorded passing through locks or dams
during the period 2003-2005.
72
Oktoc Creek Translocation
Of the two translocated males, one (# 30.320 S) wintered in the flowing bendway
before traveling back to Oktoc Creek, where it stayed from March 22, 2004 until July 14,
2004. The second (# 31.151 S) was not located outside of Demopolis Lake prior to the
failure of its transmitter (or possible emigration) between July 2004 and January 2005. A
third paddlefish (# 30.110 D) was caught and released in Oktoc Creek on March 31, 2004
after being implanted with a radio-tag. This fish remained in Oktoc Creek until May 25,
2005, at which time its transmitter’s battery presumably died.
Demopolis Lake Radio Telemetry
Six of eight paddlefish tested for site fidelity in winter exhibited this behavior
whereas eight of eight paddlefish exhibited site fidelity in spring and four of six
paddlefish exhibited site fidelity in summer (Table 3). All fish showed site fidelity in at
least one season. Only six fish were tracked during summer because the area covered by
radio-tracking in this season was limited to the flowing bendway of Demopolis Lake.
During both years, two fish (# 30.050 D and # 30.110 S) left the flowing bendway during
late spring or early summer, suggesting that these fish regularly spent summers
elsewhere.
Stocking Program Design and Monitoring
Stocked paddlefish had low survival and emigration rates one month after stocking.
Though survival appeared less in backwaters than in mainstem environments (Table 4),
73
there was not a significant difference at α=0.05 (χ2 test for independence P = 0.069).
Juvenile paddlefish dispersed throughout Columbus Lake by the second week after
stocking but tended to remain in the lake and its tributaries even though the water level
was abnormally high during the study period. Emigration did not differ between habitats
(χ2 test for independence P = 0.785; Table 4).
74
CHAPTER IV
DISCUSSION
Research efforts on the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway and its tributaries did not
precisely follow the proposed management framework because the framework developed
as this project progressed. The initial goal of this project was to investigate population
dynamics of paddlefish in the Mississippi component of the TTW through gill net
sampling of adult paddlefish spawning in the Buttahatchie River and Luxapalila Creek.
This evolved into an expansion of the study area to the entire River Section of the TTW
and a search for remnant populations. This search incorporated a predatory approach
while allowing for bi-monthly sampling at fixed sites to allow for comparison of density
across sites. Subsequently, this approach was recommended as the initial component of
Phase I in the management framework. Future projects should include the largest study
area possible and limit the sampling season to October through May. Sampling during
summer results in greater paddlefish mortality than during other seasons and may be less
effective due to thermal stratification and oxygen depletion in the hypolimnion.
On the TTW, results from the first year of this study clearly indicated that stock
assessment efforts should concentrate on Demopolis Lake due to the scarcity of
paddlefish in the system’s other impoundments. Telemetry, which was initiated during
the year (2003-2004) and expanded in the second year (2004-2005), was used to locate
75
preferred paddlefish habitat and productive netting sites. The result of this focused effort
was a much larger sample size than originally anticipated. In the management
framework, the stock assessment is included in Phase I. In some systems,
presence/absence sampling may result in large enough sample size to conduct an
adequate stock assessment during the first year, but two or three years would be a more
reasonable time frame.
Investigation of limiting factors took on many forms in the TTW throughout the
study. Side projects were continuously designed, implemented, and refined as the study
evolved. This approach resulted in the collection of data sets that were relevant to a
variety of hypotheses. Side projects produced results that collectively provided insight
into paddlefish biology and management in the TTW system. Under the proposed
management framework, investigation of limiting factors constitutes Phase II. In the case
of the TTW, investigation of limiting factors was completed concurrent with Phase I.
Investigation of site fidelity in paddlefish was an objective of the TTW study. To
facilitate this aspect of the study, paddlefish were translocated and stocked in Mississippi
waters. Designing future studies to address basic questions of paddlefish biology and
ecology is important because of the potentially broad management implications.
Investigation of site fidelity, natal philopatry, and precision of ageing techniques was
initiated, but not fully developed, during this study due to the 5- to 10-year time frame
required. A follow-up stock assessment in the TTW as suggested in Phase IV should
provide samples necessary to address these issues. Projects in other watersheds could use
a similar approach to address other questions that require many years to answer.
76
Phase III of the framework involves the review and discussion of data from earlier
phases and implementation of management actions. This dissertation represents the
beginning of Phase III for the TTW paddlefish population. The discussion and
management recommendations that follow will be reviewed by Mississippi State
University faculty and employees of MDWFP and USFWS before implementation of
additional management actions. Harvest of paddlefish from the Mississippi waters of the
Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway and its tributaries was suspended by MDWFP in 2005
in response to low catch rates noted in this study. A stocking program also was initiated
during 2005 in response to low numbers of extant paddlefish.
Phase IV should begin in 2015 and consist of a thorough stock assessment in
Columbus and Demopolis lakes. By this time, paddlefish stocked during 2005 will be age
X. Paddlefish stocked during 2006-2009 will be age VI or older. Most will be mature
and recruited to gill nets similar to those used in the current study, allowing for
assessment of the stocking program’s effect on catch rates.
Distribution and Relative Abundance
Paddlefish are extremely rare or extirpated in the Mississippi component of the TTW,
though they were common (at least in localized areas) prior to the mid-1950s.
Connections between Mississippi waters and the remnant paddlefish stock in Demopolis
Lake include the Noxubee River system and the mainstem of the TTW. Paddlefish were
not documented moving from Demopolis Lake into the Mississippi component of the
TTW, but paddlefish movement upstream and downstream past locks and dams was
77
noted in fish translocated to Columbus Lake. It is reasonable to assume that some
Demopolis and Gainesville Lake paddlefish may occasionally reach Mississippi during
high water events. Although several studies have documented the ability of paddlefish to
pass upstream through locks and dams (Moen et al. 1992; Zigler et al. 2003), passage
downstream of these structures is more common (Moen et al. 1992; Zigler et al. 2003).
The ability of paddlefish to successfully pass upstream is contingent on high water in
some instances (Zigler et al. 2004) and may be influenced by lock and dam design.
Construction of the TTW may not be the only cause of paddlefish decline in the
watershed. Fragmentation of downstream habitat may have blocked historic runs of
paddlefish from reaching spawning grounds located in Mississippi. Demopolis Dam was
completed in 1955, which is about the time that people who fished the Tombigbee River
and its tributaries in Mississippi noticed a decrease in paddlefish abundance. Industrial
and agricultural pollution also may have contributed to the decline of paddlefish in the
1950s and early 1960s.
Further fragmentation, impoundment, instream habitat degradation, and siltation
associated with construction of the TTW likely led to the further decline of any remnant
population in the Mississippi component of the mainstem beginning in the 1970s. The
capture of two paddlefish in the Buttahatchie River before 1980 suggests that this was a
historically important spawning area. Instream and floodplain gravel mining that
intensified around the area of paddlefish captures in the late 1970s may have had negative
impacts on paddlefish. Juvenile paddlefish experimentally stocked in one reclaimed
gravel pit near the Buttahatchie River exhibited low survival (10%) after one month.
78
Predation by bass (Micropterus spp.) and gar (Lepisosteus spp.), which benefit from
increased availability of lacustrine habitat, may have contributed to paddlefish mortality.
Although gravel mining may have had negative impacts on spawning success in the past,
stable gravel-bottomed shoals that are apparently suitable for spawning are currently
abundant in the area impacted by mining.
By 2003, paddlefish were nearly extirpated in Columbus and Aliceville lakes.
Occasional migrants undoubtedly enter the lakes from downstream impoundments or
from the Tennessee River via the Divide Cut, but none were collected during this study.
The density of paddlefish vulnerable to our gear in Demopolis Lake was 1.2 to 6.5
paddlefish/ha. Assuming that CPUE is a linear index of density, and that sampling at
fixed sites yielded mean CPUE representative of lakewide density, Gainesville Lake
would have between 0.07 and 0.39 paddlefish/ha (16.8 times less than Demopolis Lake
based on ratio of CPUE). This translates to a population abundance between 181 and
1,008 for Gainesville Lake. This technique cannot be used to compute density and
abundance for other impoundments because no paddlefish were captured. A paddlefish
density of 8.8/ha was reported for an unfished population in South Cross Creek
Reservoir, Tennessee (Boone and Timmons 1995), whereas the density of harvestable (>
700 mm EFL) adults in a recently overfished population in Watts Bar Reservoir,
Tennessee, yielded a 95% confidence interval of 0.14 to 0.42 paddlefish/ha (Alexander et
al. 1987). Although these published estimates are not directly comparable to TTW
estimates (the Gainesville Lake estimate is based on the capture of two juveniles and
Demopolis Lake estimate results from a mark-recapture study that used all captured
79
paddlefish), this suggests that paddlefish sparsely populate Gainesville Lake whereas the
Demopolis Lake population is intermediate in density.
Demopolis Lake
The absence of trophy (>1,300 mm EFL) paddlefish in Demopolis Lake, and low
RSD for memorable (>1,040 mm EFL) paddlefish, suggests a population with a naturally
short life span, slow growth rate, high mortality rate, or some combination of these
population characteristics. Geographic and genetic differences may result in differences
in population dynamics between the historically isolated Mississippi River and Mobile
River drainages (Carlson 1982; Epifanio et al. 1996).
Studies of Mobile River drainage paddlefish in the Alabama River system revealed a
short life span (maximum age 11 years) and an age structure that suggested high natural
mortality (Lein and DeVries 1998). The largest paddlefish from the TTW accurately
aged by the author was 12 years old, and natural annual mortality based on the catch
curve for this system was 41%. In the lower Alabama River, Alabama, annual mortality
was 34% in 1995 (Hoxemeier and DeVries 1997). The state of Alabama imposed a
moratorium on paddlefish harvest in November 1988. Most gear-recruited paddlefish in
the Alabama River study were spawned before the moratorium but were not themselves
subjected to fishing pressure as adults. The TTW fish in this study were spawned after
the moratorium and not subject to legal, targeted fishing during their lifetime. Mortality
estimates for these two Mobile River watershed populations therefore represent
approximations of natural mortality. Natural annual mortality was 9% for the unfished
80
population in South Cross Creek Reservoir, Tennessee (Boone and Timmons 1995).
Natural mortality also was estimated at 9% in an exploited Missouri River (South
Dakota/Nebraska) population, with a total annual mortality rate of 18% (Rosen et al.
1982). The difference noted between Mobile and Mississippi basin natural mortality
rates may be due, at least in part, to latitudinal effects. Three populations in Louisiana
waters of the Mississippi basin exhibited natural annual mortalities between 26% and
48% (Reed et al. 1992).
Although mortality rates for unfished populations are generally considered “natural”
mortality rates, paddlefish are susceptible to other anthropogenic forms of mortality.
Incidental mortality of paddlefish snagged on trotlines fished for catfish and, presumably,
gill nets of commercial fishermen targeting buffalo and catfish was noted in Demopolis
Lake during 2004. Two dead paddlefish were found in Twelvemile Bend on Memorial
Day weekend of 2005; both bore deep wounds apparently made by outboard propellers.
Of 355 paddlefish (recaptures excluded) captured with gill nets or found after death but
before decomposition in Demopolis Lake, three were killed accidentally by fishermen,
twenty-six (7%) had rostrum wounds or abnormalities, and an equal number bore wounds
on other parts of the body (six fish had rostrum and body wounds). On the Sunflower
River, Mississippi, 27 of 340 paddlefish (8%) bore evidence of scarring and six of the
wounded fish were documented mortalities resulting from outboard motors (George et al.
1995). On the Missouri River, South Dakota/Nebraska, 36% of paddlefish bore scars and
10% had severed rostrums; injuries were primarily attributed to encounters with snagging
hooks and powerboats (Rosen and Hales 1980). Other authors have noted injuries and
81
mortalities resulting from propellers (Purkett 1963; Fitz 1966; Runstrom et al. 2001), but
methods to estimate propeller-induced mortality rates have not been developed. In the
TTW, recreational craft in all habitats and towboats in the navigation channel and deep
portions of certain bendways could be a significant source of mortality. Any mortality
associated with propeller wounds is reflected in the “natural” mortality estimate.
Growth rates of male TTW paddlefish were less than those of Louisiana populations,
but greater than those of more northern populations. Growth in the TTW was very
similar to another Mobile basin population aside from slower growth early in life for
TTW paddlefish (Figure 12). Because the parameters of the von Bertalanffy curve are
fairly consistent with expected values, the unvalidated and nonlethal pectoral fin ageing
technique appears to yield information consistent with published data from the (also
unvalidated and lethal) dentary ageing method. Length of young fish may be
underestimated, however, due to the difficulty of precisely determining the position of the
first two annuli. Halo bands were often visible between the origin and second annulus,
but were not readily apparent between later annuli.
A non-lethal dentary ageing technique was used by Alexander et al. (1987), who
removed 3-mm wide dentary sections with a Dremel tool before releasing fish.
Recaptured fish showed decreased condition and evidence of reduced health (Alexander
et al. 1987). I attempted to remove dentary samples using a diamond-tipped coring bit
but was unable to obtain readable sections using this method. The effect of pectoral fin
ray removal was not evaluated because the only recapture of a paddlefish that had been
82
subjected to this process occurred after a mere 17 days. The wound appeared to be
healing well and no negative effects were noted.
The remnant paddlefish of Demopolis Lake used two distinct habitats (the flowing
bendway and Twelvemile Bend), which are isolated from one another by 67 km of TTW
navigation channel. The two stocks differed in terms of sex ratio and male length
frequency, suggesting that Twelvemile Bend serves as wintering habitat for juveniles and
females whereas the flowing bendway provides wintering habitat primarily for adult
males. This type of segregation by size or gender has been documented elsewhere.
Hoxemeier and DeVries (1997) found smaller paddlefish in oxbows of the Alabama
River, Alabama, than in mainstem environments. In Lake Francis Case, South Dakota,
Stancill et al. (2002) found that prespawn male paddlefish were more likely to be found
in staging locations than were females. Because the TTW flowing bendway served as
wintering and spawning habitat, the large male paddlefish could be considered ‘staging’
in the deep, slow eddies of the flowing bendway throughout the winter.
The relative weight of Demopolis Lake paddlefish (78 during winter 2005) was low
compared to the national average of 90 (Brown and Murphy 1993), but this is not
necessarily reflective of inadequate conditions for paddlefish growth and survival. As
early as 1907, researchers noted the difference between deep-bodied lacustrine paddlefish
and slender riverine paddlefish (Stockard 1907; Paukert and Fisher 2001a). The national
average computed by Brown and Murphy (1993), includes lacustrine and riverine
populations. The flowing bendway provided a riverine environment whereas current
velocity in Twelvemile Bend varied considerably according to water level. Thus, it
83
would be expected that Demopolis Lake paddlefish would have lesser relative weight
than strictly lacustrine paddlefish. A decrease in relative weight due to spawning is
common to all populations and especially pronounced in females (Brown and Murphy
1993). The decrease in relative weight for both genders during 2005 in Demopolis Lake,
coupled with the lack of such a decrease in 2004, suggests that spawning did not occur on
a large scale during 2004. Resorbtion of eggs is thought to occur when conditions do not
permit spawning (Russell 1986).
Gill nets of differing mesh size did not capture paddlefish of significantly different
lengths in Demopolis Lake. However, it is possible that gear selectivity of small
magnitude may have been masked by high variability in lengths of paddlefish caught in
each mesh size and the relatively small sample size. Paukert and Fisher (1999) captured
728 paddlefish with two of the mesh sizes used in this study (127.0- and 152.4-mm bar)
and found that significantly larger fish were captured in the larger mesh, although this
difference was relatively small (60 mm).
Several reviews of paddlefish research have stressed that few spawning areas have
been delineated and emphasized the need to identify and protect these areas from
degradation (Carlson and Bonislawsky 1981; Dillard et al. 1986; Birsten et al. 1997;
Graham 1997; Jennings and Zigler 2000). Egg sampling with artificial substrates is a
promising method to identify spawning areas and test hypotheses related to spawning
habitat. Artificial substrates allow researchers to sample continuously for months at a
time and are reasonably effective even when used in locations having abundant debris,
deep water, and high velocity.
84
In Demopolis Lake, paddlefish eggs were collected in habitats similar to the gravel
bars described by Purkett (1961) and Pasch et al. (1980) and also were collected in large
numbers from deep, high velocity areas with bedrock substrate. Purkett (1961) noted that
eggs collected from deep areas downstream from gravel bars were covered with debris,
implying that they came to rest in a depositional zone. In Demopolis Lake, deep bedrock
runs were not sites of deposition but it is unlikely that eggs would adhere to the slick,
clay-rich, marl substrate. Artificial substrates set over deep bedrock were relatively free
of the leaf litter, fine substrate, and periphyton growth that accumulated at shallow sites,
suggesting that eggs would experience ideal incubation conditions if they could adhere to
some surface. The artificial substrates provide such a surface, as might large woody
debris (present in the flowing bendway in the form of sunken, water-logged timber even
in swift current). Purkett (1961) noted the attachment of eggs to water-logged wood, but
implied that they were unlikely to hatch because of the accumulation of debris in
depositional zones where wood was found.
Paddlefish eggs hatched in the laboratory after collection from artificial substrates
despite the accumulation of periphyton, debris, and (in one instance) complete covering
of the egg with coarse sand grains. The sand had evidently adhered to the egg after the
artificial substrate became buried in sand and fine gravel. This egg came from a gravel
bar in the lower reaches of the Noxubee River, which contains very little gravel substrate
and an abundance of large woody debris and deep bedrock runs.
Documentation of paddlefish spawning in the flowing bendway of Demopolis Lake
and the Noxubee River during 2005 enabled determination of environmental conditions
85
under which paddlefish can successfully spawn and incubate their eggs. Discharge, water
temperature, and photoperiod cues were apparently inadequate to induce spawning in the
flowing bendway during 2004. Occurrence of poor and good spawning years during this
study allowed us to evaluate published habitat suitability guidelines (Hubert et al. 1984;
Crance 1987), which were not designed using data from the Mobile basin. During 2005,
most spawning occurred at daytime water temperatures of 16.9°C to 19.4°C and
discharges over 15.1% exceedance. This level of discharge corresponds to the 2.74 m
rise observed to trigger paddlefish spawning in the Osage River, Missouri (Purkett 1961).
During 2004, discharge peaked at 20.1% exceedance (1.87 m rise in gage height) for one
day and large-scale spawning of paddlefish apparently did not occur.
Though paddlefish in the TTW seem to require the same increase in discharge needed
to induce paddlefish spawning in the Mississippi basin, they spawn in warmer water than
observed in the Osage River, Missouri, (15° C to 16°C; Purkett 1961) and Cumberland
River, Tennessee (12°C to 15°C; Alexander and McDonough 1983). Suitability curves
consider 12-20°C optimal (Crance 1987). Demopolis Lake paddlefish may require
temperatures in the higher end of this range to trigger spawning. Between February 26
and March 11 2004, spawned out females were not captured following a period during
which water level was above the 2.74-m mark for 12 of 15 days despite water
temperatures of 9.7°C to 16.4°C. When spawning occurred in Demopolis Lake during
2005, temperatures were warmer than those reported from studies in the Mississippi basin
and warmer than temperatures reported for Mobile basin paddlefish in the Tallapoosa
86
River, Alabama, where paddlefish vacated spawning grounds when water temperature
exceeded 18°C (Lein and DeVries 1998).
Recruitment variability has the potential to severely impact paddlefish abundance in
Demopolis Lake. If spawning fails in several consecutive years, the population could
drop below a minimum sustainable level. Flow patterns in the primarily free-flowing
Noxubee River currently explain most of the variation in recruitment. Links between
spawning success and flow timing in regulated rivers are commonly noted in Mississippi
and Mobile basins (Purkett 1961; Alexander and McDonough 1983; Hoxmeier and
DeVries 1997). Paddlefish are generally considered large-river spawners. Evidence of
spawning has been recorded in the Cumberland River, Tennessee, when discharge
exceeds 275 m3/s (Alexander and McDonough 1983) and in the Tallapoosa River at
discharges of 100-300 m3/s (Lein and DeVries 1998). The Noxubee River is a relatively
small stream that averages 10 m3/s discharge. Eggs were collected in the Noxubee River
after a peak of 244 m3/s, and a discharge of 132 m3/s corresponds to the 2.74-m rise from
50% exceedance used in SSI calculation.
Spawning was documented through egg collection in the Noxubee River and the
flowing bendway of Demopolis Lake. The lack of a positive relationship between SSI in
the flowing bendway and year-class strength suggests that eggs spawned in Demopolis
Lake may not contribute to future Demopolis Lake stock. It is possible that hatched
larvae drift downstream into other impoundments before finding suitable nursery habitat.
They may also experience high rates of predation from black basses (Micropterus spp.),
gars (Lepisosteus spp.), and blue catfish (Ictalurus furcatus) that increased in abundance
87
after waterway construction (Boschung 1987). In some years, gravel bars where
spawning was documented in Demopolis Lake may be exposed by low flows following
spawning events due to the flashiness of the TTW. Stranding of eggs was noted by
Purkett (1961) in the Osage River, Missouri. Beyond spawning and egg incubation
habitat, the ecology of larval and juvenile paddlefish in the TTW remains as a gap in our
knowledge. Hypotheses regarding the cause of the discrepancy between Noxubee River
and Demopolis Lake flow effects on recruitment are merely speculative.
Paddlefish radio-tagged in Demopolis Lake used only a small fraction of available
habitat during much of the year. Similarly, in the upper Mississippi River 65% of
paddlefish locations in Pool 8 were in an area that comprised only 6% of available
habitat; paddlefish showed habitat selectivity in Pool 8 and Pool 5A based on depth and
current velocity (Zigler et al. 2003). In Pool 12 and Pool 13, paddlefish selected tailrace
and main-channel border habitats, often using areas of reduced current associated with
wing dams (Southall and Hubert 1984). Paddlefish in Pool 13 avoided backwaters during
1980, but selected backwater habitat during 1980 in response to high water level
(Southall and Hubert 1984), highlighting the importance of discharge and its influence on
depth and habitat selection.
In Demopolis Lake, paddlefish preferred bendway habitats and did not use backwater
and main channel environments regularly. Backwaters were generally <1.7 m deep
during the study period, and paddlefish completely avoided water <1.7 m deep in
Keystone Reservoir (Paukert and Fisher 2001b). Avoidance of main-channel habitats,
including borders, was not based on depth, which ranged from 4 to 15 m during low
88
water periods. The bendways preferred by the paddlefish of Demopolis Lake offer a
more heterogeneous environment than the dredged and snagged main channel in addition
to refuge from boat traffic, which causes unmeasured mortality in many paddlefish
populations (Fitz 1966; George et al. 1995; Runstrom et al. 2001). Paddlefish selectivity
for bendway environments cannot easily be separated from the effect of site fidelity.
Taken together, the length distribution, selectivity and site fidelity trends suggest that
individual paddlefish consistently use the same summer and winter habitats from year to
year, with smaller males shifting preferred habitat from Twelvemile Bend to the flowing
bendway as they age. During a brief period during spring, and if conditions are ideal,
paddlefish throughout Demopolis Lake move long distances, and spawn in the flowing
bendway and Noxubee River (and perhaps other areas).
Fidelity to spawning areas (Lein and De Vries 1998) and segregation of paddlefish by
length and gender have been noted in the Alabama River system, Alabama (Hoxmeier
and DeVries 1997). Evidence provided from the present study does not directly support
spawning site fidelity because locations noted during the spring do not necessarily
indicate spawning locations. This is especially true for 2004, when no evidence of
spawning was recorded. What is unique to this study is documentation of individual
paddlefish using similar habitats in winter and summer from one year to the next.
Stancill et al. (2002) found that in Lake Francis Case, South Dakota, paddlefish that
were tagged during spring in the White River were four times more likely to return to the
White River in a subsequent year than were paddlefish tagged below Big Bend Dam on
the Missouri River. These two groups of fish mingled during most of the year in
89
downstream areas of Lake Francis Case (Stancill et al. 2002). Paddlefish in Keystone
Reservoir, Oklahoma, were attracted to high flows in the Arkansas River and the Salt
Fork River during spring 1997, but were only located in the Salt Fork River during spring
1998 when flow was low in the Arkansas River and high in the Salt Fork River (Paukert
and Fisher 2001b). The Keystone Reservoir example does not suggest site fidelity, but it
does not follow histories of individual fish, either.
Seven of eight paddlefish in Demopolis Lake’s flowing bendway had similar
distribution patterns in consecutive springs, suggesting seasonal if not spawning site
fidelity. However, of these eight fish only one entered the Noxubee River during 2004
under low flow conditions while four entered the tributary at least once during 2005
under high flow. The importance of the Noxubee River to recruitment was demonstrated,
and the observed relationship to flow may be a result of the reluctance of paddlefish to
enter this small stream during low or moderate flow conditions. Even during the high
water year of 2005, most spring locations were in the flowing bendway or Twelvemile
Bend rather than the Noxubee River, which was only attractive to paddlefish during a
brief period of extreme high water.
Because spawning was noted in the flowing bendway and in the Noxubee River, it
could be hypothesized that spawning occurs in the flowing bendway under a wider range
of current conditions than are necessary to prompt spawning in the Noxubee River.
However, when spawning is limited to the flowing bendway due to low or moderate flow
in the Noxubee River, it may not be successful. Similarly, Coutant (2004) noted that
white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) have been documented spawning in highly
90
regulated rivers during years that produce no recruitment. In all likelihood, site fidelity
and flow attraction play a major role in paddlefish spawning behavior. Individual fish
may have a stronger tendency toward site fidelity vs. flow attraction and vice versa, as
evidenced by the two Oktoc Creek fish radio-tagged and translocated to the flowing
bendway of Demopolis Lake during 2003. One displayed a clear example of homing
behavior, returning to the tiny Noxubee River distributary (Oktoc Creek) during the low
flow year of 2004, one year after its initial capture. The other fish behaved as resident
flowing bendway paddlefish did during 2004 and did not move into the Noxubee River
system.
Columbus Lake
Physical and chemical parameters in Columbus Lake are appropriate for growth and
survival of paddlefish. Average depths used by paddlefish were shallower in Columbus
Lake (3.8 m) than Demopolis Lake (6.2 m), but similar to depths preferred by paddlefish
in Pool 5A of the Mississippi River, another shallow environment. In Pool 5A, 83% of
paddlefish locations were in an area that averaged 3.4 m deep, whereas the remainder of
the impoundment was <2 m deep (Zigler et al. 2003). Telemetry data from Pool 5A and
other areas of the upper Mississippi River system were used to define excellent habitat as
>6 m deep (Zigler et al. 2003), suggesting that Columbus Lake, which has an average
depth of 2 m (Pugh et al. 2001), may be suboptimal.
Published literature does not suggest that the low conductivity of Columbus Lake is
detrimental to paddlefish. Paddlefish avoided areas of extremely high conductivity (>
91
1,275 µS/cm) in Keystone Reservoir, Oklahoma (Paukert and Fisher 2000). Literature
addressing systems where specific conductance as low as observed in Columbus Lake
during early summer (mean = 115.5 µS/cm; SE = 1.6) is not available. Although specific
conductance was greater in Demopolis Lake (mean = 132.7 µS/cm; SE = 4.1), it was still
relatively low and had no apparent negative effect on paddlefish.
Relative to Demopolis Lake, zooplankton density is low in Columbus Lake (Table 5).
Other systems that support paddlefish have lesser densities than Columbus Lake, in terms
of zooplankton in general and preferred taxa (Table 5). Columbus Lake does not provide
the ideal depth and zooplankton density that Demopolis Lake does, but other studies
suggest that Columbus Lake does provide habitat comparable to areas which support
paddlefish populations. Survival of juvenile paddlefish stocked in the mainstem of
Columbus Lake reinforced this conclusion.
Juveniles stocked in mainstem environments experienced greater survival and similar
low rate of emigration when compared to backwaters. The difference in survival rates (P
= 0.069) was not significant at α = 0.05, but would have been at α = 0.10. Given the large
magnitude of the difference (26% vs. 5%) and importance of that difference from a
management standpoint, I consider the mainstem stocking more successful. Post-
stocking mortality accounted for greater loss of paddlefish from Columbus Lake than
emigration regardless of stocking protocol. Emigration was identified as a possible
impediment to paddlefish recovery efforts in B. A. Steinhagen Reservoir, Texas (Pitman
and Parks 1994). Due to long-distance upstream and downstream movements noted
shortly after stocking juvenile paddlefish, Pitman and Parks (1994) recommended
92
stocking paddlefish far from dams. The stocking site at Barton’s Ferry on Columbus
Lake was chosen based on this criterion and appears to be ideal. Mainstem stocking
locations close to dams in Columbus Lake are likely to result in greater emigration.
The seasonal site fidelity observed in Demopolis Lake paddlefish bodes well for the
Columbus Lake restoration effort. Seven of eight translocated adults emigrated from
Columbus Lake, and the eighth died. Four of the seven returned to Demopolis Lake
where they were captured, indicating that site fidelity may have been driving the
emigration as much or more than the suboptimal conditions of Columbus Lake.
Juvenile paddlefish raised in a hatchery and released into Columbus Lake were much
less likely to emigrate than adults translocated to Columbus Lake. A study of stocked
juvenile paddlefish movements in Lake Francis Case, South Dakota, found that they
remained in upper reservoir areas for the full three years of study and showed
individually distinct patterns of habitat use (Roush et al. 2003). However, these fish did
not exhibit site fidelity based on stocking site within the reservoir, but rather developed
patterns of habitat use independent of their stocking location (Roush et al. 2003). Their
large size (340-432 mm EFL), and small stocked cohort size (16 fish at each site), also
may have been factors in the observed lack of stocking site fidelity. Juvenile paddlefish
are normally smaller, younger, and in the company of thousands of conspecifics when
stocked for population recovery purposes.
93
Conclusion and Management Recommendations
The Mississippi portion of the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway (TTW) and its
tributaries includes three distinct areas in terms of paddlefish management. The Divide
Cut and Canal Section of the TTW are within Mississippi, but are not candidates for
paddlefish restoration because of limited deep (>3 m depth) habitat, extreme habitat
fragmentation, and lack of refugia from navigational traffic. Bay Springs Lake is the
only exception to this description of the Divide Cut and Canal Section, but the possibility
of emigration into the Tennessee River and subsequent mixing of genetic stocks is high.
Additionally, Bay Springs Lake probably does not offer potential spawning habitat due to
its lack of major tributaries.
The Noxubee River appears to be a critical spawning area for the last natural remnant
of the TTW population, which resides in Demopolis Lake, Alabama. The Noxubee River
probably does not have the potential to support large numbers of adults on a year-round
basis, but may be important as juvenile nursery habitat due to the integrity of the
floodplain.
The third area is the River Section (Columbus and Aliceville lakes in Mississippi) and
associated tributaries. Paddlefish have been virtually extirpated in this area but the
potential for population restoration does exist. Columbus Lake offers an abundance of
bendway habitat and tributaries with apparently suitable spawning habitat (Buttahatchie
River, Tibbee Creek, and Town Creek).
94
Noxubee River and Demopolis Lake
Historically, most Tombigbee River paddlefish probably spawned in the mainstem of
the river. The Noxubee River is smaller than most rivers used by spawning paddlefish,
but it remains to date free-flowing and unchannelized. Although its flow regime is
natural, in some years low flow during spring is apparently not conducive to substantial
paddlefish spawning. Presumably, the Tombigbee River and other tributaries historically
provided adequate spawning habitat in some years when flow was low in the Noxubee
River. Currently, paddlefish could be severely impacted by any further assault on their
much-diminished spawning habitat: the Noxubee River and perhaps the flowing
bendway.
Analyses presented here incorporated four year classes and no direct measurement of
recruitment through multi-year collection of eggs, larvae, or juveniles. The data in this
study indicate that recruitment is most likely the limiting factor for the remnant TTW
paddlefish, but more data are necessary to explore the relationships between flow and
specific early-life history responses. Specific spawning sites in Mississippi waters of the
Noxubee River have not been verified, although they almost certainly exist. A minimum
of three additional years of study aimed at describing spawning sites in Mississippi,
quantifying their contribution to the Demopolis Lake stock, and determining the effects
of flow would be a logical next step.
Artificial substrates would be a useful tool to assess spawning in the Mississippi
component of the Noxubee River, but high water makes navigation and retrieval very
95
difficult in this environment. Study design should incorporate artificial substrates and
sampling for larvae and juveniles in the Noxubee River and Demopolis Lake.
Stocking known numbers of OTC-marked paddlefish larvae would aid in assessing
effectiveness of larval sampling, which will probably be very low given the extreme
discharge and debris load that coincides with paddlefish spawning. If larval sampling is
effective, sampling at the mouth of the Noxubee River and the confluence of the flowing
bendway and navigation channel in Demopolis Lake would allow calculation of the
contribution of both areas in terms of larval input to Demopolis Lake. If larval fish from
the Noxubee River are finding nursery habitat in the Noxubee River floodplain it would
be reflected in low inputs to Demopolis Lake in spring.
Sampling for juveniles in backwater habitats of the Noxubee River and Demopolis
Lake using electrofishing would be necessary to identify nursery areas, which are
currently unknown. Juvenile sampling also should incorporate pelagic sampling in
Demopolis Lake if an effective method can be developed.
Given the population abundance, high natural mortality, and variable recruitment of
paddlefish in Demopolis Lake, suspension of the harvest moratorium in Alabama is not
recommended. Assuming a 50:50 sex ratio for the population of the entire lake, females
vulnerable to gill nets could number as low as 791 based on the population estimate. To
put this into perspective, 361 paddlefish captures were recorded in Demopolis Lake
during this study in 1,069 net-hours of effort (standardized to nets 30.5 m long and
hobbled to 2.4 m). A single dedicated commercial fisherman could capture 1,134
paddlefish (567 females) in four weeks of fishing ten nets per day soaked for 12 hours at
96
a time based on these figures. This is obviously an overestimate because of the effect of
stock depletion on CPUE and the gear saturation that would occur with long soak times
in prime spots, but it illustrates the potential disastrous effect of legalizing unrestricted
fishing – especially in light of the increased demand on paddlefish roe that has followed
the ban on importing beluga caviar. Inconsistent recruitment has the potential to deplete
stocks even without the threat of overfishing.
The primary management concern in the Noxubee River and Demopolis Lake is
protection of remaining suitable habitat. This requires a better understanding of
spawning and nursery requirements, in part, but clearly pertains to protection of the
Noxubee River watershed and the flowing bendway due to spawning that occurs there
and protection of Twelvemile Bend from further siltation. No immediate threats are
apparent in the Noxubee River or flowing bendway, although any proposed
anthropogenic activity that could degrade these habitats should be considered in terms of
its potential impact on paddlefish before proceeding.
Twelvemile Bend has been subject to sedimentation since the completion of its cutoff
channel in 1976. Depth at a transect 600 m from its upstream decreased over 37 percent
between 1977 and 1980 due to formation of a sand plug, implying that maximum depth in
1977 was approximately 10.7 m (Pennington et al. 1981). By 2005, maximum depths at
normal flow did not generally exceed 6 m in the upstream 2.7 km of Twelvemile Bend
due to the sand plug. Paddlefish did not use the shallow upper end of Twelvemile Bend
(Figure 13). The deep lower end of Twelvemile Bend, which was used by towboat and
barge traffic, was not extensively used by paddlefish, either. Ninety-two percent (168 of
97
182) of paddlefish locations in Twelvemile Bend were in the deep middle portions
upstream from the barge landing and downstream of the sand plug. Given the severely
altered nature of the TTW, the only viable approach to maintaining the quality of
Twelvemile Bend habitat for paddlefish is periodic dredging of the upstream end.
Columbus Lake
Environmental conditions in Columbus Lake are adequate for juvenile and adult
survival, but suitability of spawning and nursery habitat has not been solidly documented.
Restoration efforts require stocking because no adult stock exists. For stocking to be
judged successful, sufficient numbers of paddlefish must survive to adulthood and
successfully reproduce. Stocking paddlefish in the mainstem was most successful in
terms of juvenile survival, but may not enable paddlefish to imprint on habitats that will
be suitable for spawning as adults.
If we assume the best-case scenario of paddlefish finding and using suitable spawning
habitat as adults, a certain minimum number of adult spawners will be needed. If the
most conservative estimate of annual natural mortality in Demopolis Lake (38%) is
assumed to approximate survival of age 1 and older paddlefish in Columbus Lake, and
assuming that the mortality observed in radio-tagged juvenile paddlefish of Columbus
Lake (72%) is roughly equivalent to first-year mortality of tagless fish, we can roughly
project future stock abundance. Given these gross approximations and the 3,993
paddlefish stocked during 2005, if 4,000 paddlefish are stocked per year for the next four
years 245 adult paddlefish will comprise the Columbus Lake population in 2015. By that
98
time, stocked fish will be age 6 to 10 and most will be mature. This corresponds to a
projected adult density of 0.07/ha. To achieve a density of 1 paddlefish/ha, which is on
the low side of published estimates for healthy populations, stocking 62,000 juvenile
paddlefish per year for 4 years would be necessary if estimated parameters are correct.
This is not feasible given the current capacity of available hatchery space.
If we substitute the least published estimate of mortality in a southern paddlefish
population (26%) for the Demopolis Lake estimate and assume an optimistic 50%
survival of untagged juveniles during the first year, stocking 4,000 juveniles for four
years would result in a population abundance of 1,328 by 2015. Even if the projected
future population size of 245 is low due to overestimation of mortality, a lack of
spawning success or availability of nursery habitat may preclude establishment of a
naturally sustainable population.
The money and time spent simply to restore the paddlefish population of Columbus
Lake through stocking would be better spent on other systems that are not faced with the
problems of habitat fragmentation, siltation of remaining suitable habitat, lack of
mainstem spawning habitat, severed connection to floodplain environments, and altered
flow regime that will persist in the TTW for the foreseeable future. However, Columbus
Lake does provide an ideal environment to study basic questions of paddlefish behavior
and strategies for restoration. Experimental stocking for research purposes should
continue at the rate of 4,000 CWT-marked juvenile paddlefish per year for a minimum of
four years. Up to 1,000,000 OTC-marked larvae should be stocked annually in Tibbee
Creek. This will allow stock assessment efforts beginning in 2015 to provide a definitive
99
answer regarding natal philopatry in paddlefish. Broodstock collection and stocking
techniques specific to Columbus Lake have evolved to the point where such an
undertaking would be possible. The proposed stocking program should be continued
after four years if routine sampling by MDWFP and Mississippi State University indicate
survival of stocked fish, but suspended if no evidence suggests stocking success.
The suggested stocking regime would allow researchers to compare success of
juvenile and larval stocking in terms of their contribution to future Columbus Lake stock.
The juvenile stocking protocol should result in establishment of a measurable (although
small) population by 2015, whereas the effect of such a large-scale fry stocking in the
turbid and nutrient-rich environment of Tibbee Creek is unknown. The potential does
exist for the larval stocking program to be more effective than the juvenile stocking
program. In that case, restoration might be feasible in Columbus Lake because the time,
hatchery space, and cost of producing larval paddlefish is miniscule compared to that
required for production of juveniles, and the number of larvae that could be produced
yearly is almost unlimited. Of course, larval stockings are generally unsuccessful due to
high mortality and are only potentially effective in areas of high food abundance and/or
low predation.
Statewide Overview
Paddlefish are a high-priority species for fisheries managers in Mississippi because of
the multiplicity of human values associated with them; most notably the high economic
value of their roe and aesthetic/intrinsic value stemming from their unique biology,
100
evolutionary history, and disappearance from degraded environments. For optimal
sustained yield to be realized from paddlefish populations in this state, different
management goals must be sought in different watersheds according to population
characteristics and quality of habitat. The basis for these management goals is good
information, which currently does not exist for most watersheds in Mississippi. The
proposed management framework would address basic distribution and population
dynamics questions before proceeding with management actions.
On the TTW, initial findings regarding distribution profoundly influenced stock
assessment study design, which in turn determined some of the questions regarding
limiting factors. Within the TTW system, patchiness of paddlefish was evident and the
scale to which management actions apply was relatively small due to habitat
fragmentation, habitat selectivity, and seasonal site fidelity. In other, less fragmented,
systems with a greater abundance of suitable habitat this scale will likely be much larger.
It is impossible to anticipate all of the potential management options that exist in other
systems due to the dearth of available data, but it is likely that the approach to systems
such as the Pascagoula and Yazoo will differ considerably from each other and the TTW.
Research projects should be initiated as soon as possible on the Pascagoula and
Yazoo systems in part due to the effects of Hurricane Katrina and the recent ban on
beluga caviar imports. The potential for extirpation of the Pascagoula stock is high based
on what little information exists. The Yazoo is a potentially productive and sustainable
roe fishery, but such a fishery might only be sustainable if monitored closely. Research
should continue on the TTW despite the limited potential for population recovery in
101
Columbus Lake. Findings regarding stocking techniques and natal philopatry may be
useful for future restoration efforts in Mississippi and elsewhere, and the role of the
Noxubee River as it relates to the sustainability of the remnant Demopolis Lake
population deserves further investigation.
102
LITERATURE CITED
Adams, L. A. 1965. Age determination and rate of growth in Polyodon spathula, by
means of the growth rings of the otoliths and dentary bone. American Midland
Naturalist 28:617-630.
Alexander, C. M. and T. A. McDonough. 1983. Effect of water condition during
spawning on paddlefish year-class strength in Old Hickory Reservoir, Tennessee.
Tennessee Valley Authority, TVA/ONR/WRF-83-4(a), Knoxville, Tennessee. 29
pp.
Alexander, C. M, A. I. Myhr, and J. L. Wilson. 1987. Harvest potential of paddlefish
stocks in Watts Bar Reservoir, Tennessee. Proceedings of the Annual Conference
of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 39(1985):45-55.
Alexander, C. M., and D. C. Peterson. 1985. Feasibility of a commercial paddlefish
harvest from Norris Reservoir, Tennessee. Proceedings of the Annual Conference
of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 36(1982):202-212.
Anderson, R. O. and R. M. Neumann. 1996. Length, weight, and associated structural
indices. Pages 447-482 in Murphy B. R. and D. W. Willis, editors. Fisheries
techniques. Second edition. American Fisheries Society. Bethesda, Maryland.
Birstein, V. B., W. E. Bemis, and J. R. Waldman. 1997. The threatened status of
acipenseriform species: a summary. Environmental Biology of Fishes 48:427-435.
Blackwell, B. G., B. R. Murphy, and V. M. Pitman. 1995. Suitability of food resources
and physiochemical parameters in the lower Trinity River, Texas for paddlefish.
Journal of Freshwater Ecology. 10(2):163-175.
Boone, E. A., Jr. and T. J. Timmons. 1995. Density and natural mortality of paddlefish,
Polyodon spathula, in an unfished Cumberland River subimpoundment, South
Cross Creek Reservoir, Tennessee. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 10:421-431.
Boreman, J. 1997. Sensitivity of North American sturgeons and paddlefish to fishing
mortality. Environmental Biology of Fishes 48:399-405.
103
Boschung, H. 1987. Physical factors and the distribution and abundance of fishes in the
Upper Tombigbee River System of Alabama and Mississippi, with emphasis on
the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway. Pages 184-192 in W. J. Matthews and D. C.
Heins, editors. Community and Evolutionary Ecology of North American Stream
Fishes. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma.
Boschung, H. 1989. Atlas of fishes of the upper Tombigbee River drainage, Alabama-
Mississippi. Southeastern Fishes Council Proceedings 19. 104 pp.
Brown, A. V., K. B. Brown, D. C. Jackson, and W. K. Pierson. 2005a. Lower
Mississippi River and its tributaries. Pages. 231-282 in Benke, A. C. and C. E.
Cushing, editors. Rivers of North America. Elsevier Academic Press, New York,
New York.
Brown, M. L. and B. R. Murphy. 1993. Management evaluation of body condition and
population size structure for paddlefish: a unique case. Prairie Naturalist 25(2):93-
108.
Brown, P., C. Green, K. P. Sivakumaran, D. Stoessel, and A. Giles. 2005b. Validating
otolith annuli for annual age determination of common carp. Transactions of the
American Fisheries Society 133:190-196.
Busacker, G. P., I. R. Adelman, and E. M. Goolish. 1990. Growth. Pages 363-387 in
Schreck, C. B. and P. B. Moyle, editors. Methods for fish biology. American
Fisheries Society. Bethesda, Maryland.
Carlson, D. M. 1982. Low genetic variability in paddlefish populations. Copeia
1982(3):721-725.
Carlson, D. M. and P. S. Bonislawsky. 1981. The paddlefish (Polyodon spathula)
fisheries of the midwestern United States. Fisheries 6(2):17-27.
Chapman, D. G. 1951. Some properties of the hypergeometric distribution with
applications to zoological sample censuses. University of California Publications
in Statistics 1:131-160.
Collins, M. R. and T. I. J. Smith. 1996. Sturgeon fin ray removal is nondeleterious. North
American Journal of Fisheries Management 16:939-941.
Combs, D. L. 1982. Angler exploitation of paddlefish in the Neosho River, Oklahoma.
North American Journal of Fisheries Management 4:334-342.
104
Conover, W. J. 1999. Practical nonparametric statistics. Third Edition. John Wiley and
Sons, Inc., New York, New York. 584 pp.
Cook, Fannye A. 1959. Freshwater fishes of Mississippi. Mississippi Game and Fish
Commission, Jackson, Mississippi. 239 pp.
Coutant, C. C. 2004. A riparian habitat hypothesis for successful reproduciton of white
sturgeon. Reviews in Fisheries Science 12:23-73.
Crance, J. H. 1987. Habitat suitability index curves for paddlefish, developed by the
Delphi technique. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 7:123-130.
DeVries, D. R. and R. V. Frie. 1996. Determination of age and growth. Pages. 447-482 in
Murphy B. R. and D. W. Willis, editors. Fisheries techniques. Second edition.
American Fisheries Society. Bethesda, Maryland.
Dillard, J. G., L. K. Graham, and T. R. Russell. 1986. Symposium wrap-up. Pages 114-
116 in J. G. Dillard, L. K. Graham, and T. R. Russell, editors. The paddlefish:
status, management, and propagation. North Central Division American Fisheries
Society, Special Publication 7, Bethesda, Maryland.
Dynesius, M. and C. Nilsson. 1994. Fragmentation and flow regulation of river systems
in the northern third of the world. Science 226(5186):753-762.
Epifanio, J. M., J. B. Koppelman, M. A. Nedbal, and D. P. Philipp. 1996. Geographic
variation of paddlefish allozymes and mitochondrial DNA. Transactions of the
American Fisheries Society 125:546-561.
Fitz, R. B. 1966. Unusual food of a paddlefish (Polyodon spathula) in Tennessee. Copeia
1966(2):356.
Gengerke, T. A. 1986. Distribution and abundance of paddlefish in the United States.
Pages 22-35 in J. G. Dillard, L. K. Graham, and T. R. Russell, editors. The
paddlefish: status, management, and propagation. North Central Division
American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 7, Bethesda, Maryland.
George, S. G., J. J. Hoover, K. J. Kilgore, and W. E. Lancaster. 1995. Biology of
paddlefish in a Mississippi Delta river. Proceedings of the Twenty-fifth
Mississippi Water Resources Conference. Mississippi State, Mississippi.
1995:163-173.
105
Glendive Chamber of Commerce. 2005. http://www.glendivechamber.com.
Graham, L. K. 1986. Establishing and maintaining paddlefish populations by stocking.
Pages 96-104 in J. G. Dillard, L. K. Graham, and T. R. Russell, editors. The
paddlefish: status, management, and propagation. North Central Division
American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 7, Bethesda, Maryland.
Graham, L. K. 1997. Contemporary status of the North American paddlefish, Polyodon
spathula. Environmental Biology of Fishes 48:279-289.
Hart, L. G. and R. C. Summerfelt. 1975. Surgical procedures for implanting transmitters
into flathead catfish (Pylodictis olivaris). Transactions of the American Fisheries
Society 104:56-59.
Heath, D. 1995. An introduction to experimental design and statistics for biology. UCL
Press, London, England. 372 pp.
Holman, T. 1988. Angler intercept creel surveys on Pearl, Pascagoula, Chickasawhay,
and Leaf Rivers, I988. Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks,
Freshwater Fisheries Report 95 (MS 250), Jackson, Mississippi. 32 pp.
Hoover, J. J., K. J. Killgore, and S. G. George. 2000. Horned serpents, leaf dogs, and
spoonbill cats: 500 years of paddlefish ponderings in North America. American
Currents 26(2)1-10.
Hoxmeier, R. J. H., and D. R. DeVries. 1996. Status of paddlefish in the Alabama waters
of the Tennessee River. North American Journal of Fisheries Management
16:935-938.
Hoxmeier, R. J. H., and D. R. DeVries. 1997. Habitat use, diet, and population structure
of adult and juvenile paddlefish in the Lower Alabama River. Transactions of the
American Fisheries Society 126:288-301.
Hubert, W. A., S. H. Anderson, P. D. Southall, and J. H. Crance. 1984. Habitat suitability
index models and instream flow suitability curves: paddlefish. United States Fish
and Wildlife Service Biological Services Program, FWS/OBS-82/10.80. 33 pp.
Hussakof, L. 1911. The spoonbill fishery of the lower Mississippi. Transactions of the
American Fisheries Society 40:245-248.
106
Jennings, C. A. and D. M. Wilson. 1993. Spawning activity of paddlefish (Polyodon
spathula) in the lower Black River, Wisconsin. Journal of Freshwater Ecology
(8)3:261-262.
Jennings, C. A. and S. J. Zigler. 2000. Ecology and biology of paddlefish in North
America: historical perspectives, management approaches, and research priorities.
Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 10:167-181.
Kalos, M. H. and P. A. Whitlock. 1986. Monte Carlo methods: volume I: basics. John
Wiley and Sons, New York, New York. 186 pp.
Kernohan, B. J., R. A. Gitzen, and J. J. Misspaugh. 2001. Analysis of animal space use
and movements. Pages 125-166 in Millspaugh, J. J. and J. M. Marzluff, editors.
Radio tracking and animal populations. Academic Press, San Diego, California.
Lein, G. M. and D. R. DeVries. 1997. Boat electrofishing as a technique for sampling
paddlefish. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 126:334-337.
Lein, G. M. and D. R. DeVries. 1998. Paddlefish in the Alabama River drainage:
population characteristics and the adult spawning migration. Transactions of the
American Fisheries Society 127: 441-454.
Lyons, J. 1993. Status and biology of the paddlefish (Polyodon spathula) in the lower
Wisconsin River. Transactions of the Wisconsin Academy of Science, Arts, and
Letters 81:121-135.
Mabee, P. M. and M. Noordsy. 2004. Development of the paired fins in the paddlefish,
Polyodon spathula. Journal of Morphology 261:334-344.
Maceina, M. J., P. W. Bettoli, and D. R. DeVries. 1994. Use of split-plot analysis of
variance design for repeated-measures fishery data. Fisheries 19(3):14-20.
Marchant, S. R. and M. K. Shutters. 1996. Artificial substrates collect Gulf sturgeon
eggs. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 16:445-447.
McCabe, G. T., Jr., and L. G. Beckman. 1990. Use of an artificial substrate to collect
white sturgeon eggs. California Fish and Game 76:248-250.
McCune, B. and J. B. Grace. 2002. Analysis of Ecological Communities. MjM Software
Design, Gleneden Beach, Oregon. 300 pp.
107
Meals, K. and R. Kiihnl. 1993. Fisheries investigations and management on north
Mississippi reservoirs. Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks,
Freshwater Fisheries Report 124 (MS 297), Jackson, Mississippi. 112 pp.
Mettee, M. F., P. E. O'Neil, and J. M. Pierson. 1996. Fishes of Alabama and the Mobile
Basin. Oxmoor House, Birmingham, Alabama. 820 pp.
Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). 2000. Yazoo River Basin
status report 2000. Jackson, Mississippi. 29 pp.
Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). 2001. Pascagoula River
Basin status report 2001. Jackson, Mississippi. 29 pp.
Mississippi Interstate Cooperative Resource Association (MICRA). 2005. Paddlefish
Genetics Plan. http://wwwaux.cerc.cr.usgs.gov/MICRA/pfgenetics.pdf.
Moen, C. T., D. L. Scarnecchia, and J. S. Ramsey. 1992. Paddlefish movements and
habitat use in Pool 13 of the Upper Mississippi River during abnormally low river
stages and discharges. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 12:744-
751.
Moyle, P. B. and J. J. Cech, Jr. 1996. Fishes: an introduction to ichthyology. Prentice
Hall. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. 590 pp.
O'Keefe, D. M., G. Berryhill, and D. C. Jackson. 2004. Assessment of paddlefish in the
Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway. Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries,
and Parks, Freshwater Fisheries Report 235 (MS 390), Jackson, Mississippi. 52
pp.
Parker, B. J. 1988. Status of the paddlefish, Polyodon spathula, in Canada. Canadian
Field-Naturalist 102(2):291-295.
Pasch, R. W., P. A. Hackney, and J. A. Holbrook II. 1980. Ecology of paddlefish in Old
Hickory Reservoir, Tennessee, with emphasis on first-year life history.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 109:157-167.
Paukert, C. P. and W. L. Fisher. 1999. Evaluation of paddlefish length distributions and
catch rates in three mesh sizes of gill nets. North American Journal of Fisheries
Management 19:599-603.
108
Paukert, C. P. and W. L. Fisher. 2000. Abiotic factors affecting summer distribution and
movement of male paddlefish, Polyodon spathula, in a prairie reservoir. The
Southwestern Naturalist 45(2):133-140.
Paukert, C. P. and W. L. Fisher. 2001a. Characteristics of paddlefish in a southwestern
U.S. reservoir, with comparisons of lentic and lotic populations. Transactions of
the American Fisheries Society 130:634-643.
Paukert, C. P. and W. L. Fisher. 2001b. Spring movements of paddlefish in a prairie
reservoir system. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 16:113-123.
Pennington, C. H., J. A. Baker, F. G. Howell, and C. L. Bond. 1981. A study of cutoff
bendways on the Tombigbee River. United States Army Corps of Engineers,
Technical Report E-81-14, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 78 pp.
Petersen, R. G. 1985. Design and analysis of experiments. Marcel Decker, Inc. New
York, New York. 429 pp.
Pitman, V. M. and J. O. Parks. 1994. Habitat use and movement of young paddlefish
(Polyodon spathula). Journal of Freshwater Ecology 9(3):181-189.
Pugh, L., D. Franks, and C. Watts. 2001. Northeast Mississippi fisheries management
investigations: District 1. Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and
Parks. Freshwater Fisheries Report 213 (MS 367), Jackson, Mississippi. 110 pp.
Purkett, C. A. 1961. Reproduction and early development of the paddlefish. Transactions
of the American Fisheries Society 90(2):125-129.
Purkett, C. A. 1963. The paddlefish fishery of the Osage River and Lake of the Ozarks,
Missouri. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 92:239-244.
Reed, B. C., W. E. Kelso, and D. A. Rutheford. 1992. Growth, fecundity, and mortality of
paddlefish in Louisisana. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
121:378-384.
Ricker, W. E. 1975. Computation and interpretation of biological statistics of fish
populations. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Bulletin 191, Ottawa, Canada.
382 pp.
Rien, T. A., and R. C. Beamesderfer. 1994. Accuracy and precision of white sturgeon age
estimates from pectoral fin-rays. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
123: 255-265.
109
Rosen, R. A. and D. C. Hales. 1980. Occurrence of scarred paddlefish in the Missouri
River South Dakota-Nebraska. The Progressive Fish-Culturist 42(2):82-84.
Rosen, R. A. and D. C. Hales. 1981. Feeding of paddlefish, Polyodon spathula. Copeia
1981(2):441-455.
Rosen, R. A., D. C. Hales, and D. G. Unkenholz. 1982. Biology and exploitation of
paddlefish in the Missouri River below Gavins Point Dam. Transactions of the
American Fisheries Society 111:216-222.
Ross, S. T. 2001. Inland Fishes of Mississippi. University Press of Mississippi, Oxford,
Mississippi. 624 p.
Rossiter, A., D. L. G. Noakes, and F. W. H. Beamish. 1995. Validation of age estimation
for lake sturgeon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 124:777-781.
Roush, K. D., C. P. Paukert, and W. Stancill. 2003. Distribution and movement of
juvenile paddlefish in a mainstream Missouri River reservoir. Journal of
Freshwater Ecology 18(1):79-87.
Ruelle, R. and P. L. Hudson. 1977. Paddlefish: growth and food of young of the year and
a suggested technique for measuring length. Transactions of the American
Fisheries Society 106:609-613.
Runstrom, A. L., B. Vondracek, and C. A. Jennings. 2001. Population statistics for
paddlefish in the Wisconsin River. Transactions of the American Fisheries
Society 130:546-556.
Russell, T. R. 1986. Biology and life history of the paddlefish - a review. Pages 2-20 in J.
G. Dillard, L. K. Graham, and T. R. Russell, editors. The paddlefish: status,
management, and propagation. North Central Division American Fisheries
Society, Special Publication 7, Bethesda, Maryland.
SAS Institute, Inc. 2001. Software release 8.2. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, North Carolina.
Scarnecchia, D. L., P. A. Stewart, and Y. Lim. 1996. Profile of recreational paddlefish
snaggers on the lower Yellowstone River, Montana. North American Journal of
Fisheries Management 16:872-879.
Scholten, G. D., and P. W. Bettoli. 2005. Population characteristics and assessment of
overfishing for an exploited paddlefish population in the lower Tennessee River.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 134:1285-1298.
110
Schrank, S. J. and C. S. Guy. 2003. Competitive interactions between age-0 bighead carp
and paddlefish. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 132:1222-1228.
Schultz, C. A. 1981. Northeast Mississippi fisheries investigations: Tombigbee River
basin pre-impoundment studies. Mississippi Department of Wildlife
Conservation, Freshwater Fisheries Report 18 (MS 157), Jackson, Mississippi. 86
pp.
Seattle Caviar Company. 2003. Online catalog. http://www.caviar.com.
Shephard, S. and D. C. Jackson. 2005. Channel catfish maturation in Mississippi streams.
North American Journal of Fisheries Management 25:1467-1475.
Shuckman’s Fish Company and Smokery. 2005. http://www.kysmokedfish.com.
Smith, F. E. 1954. The Yazoo River. Rinehart and Company, Inc., New York, New York.
362 pp.
Southall, P. D. and W. A. Hubert. 1984. Habitat use by adult paddlefish in the Upper
Mississippi River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 113:125-131.
Southwick, R. I., and A. J. Leftus, editors. 2003. Investigation and monetary values of
fish and freshwater mussel kills. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication
30, Bethesda, Maryland. 176 pp.
Sparrowe, R. D. 1986. Threats to paddlefish habitat. Pages 36-45 in J. G. Dillard, L. K.
Graham, and T. R. Russell, editors. The paddlefish: status, management, and
propagation. North Central Division American Fisheries Society, Special
Publication 7, Bethesda, Maryland.
Stancill, W., G. R. Jordan, and C. P. Paukert. 2002. Seasonal migration patterns and site
fidelity of adult paddlefish in Lake Francis Case, Missouri River. North American
Journal of Fisheries Management 22: 815-824.
Stockard, C. R. 1907. Observations on the natural history of Polyodon spathula.
American Naturalist 41:753-766.
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2005. http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/rt.
Ward, G. M., P. M. Harris, and A. K. Ward. 2005. Gulf Coast rivers of the southeastern
United States. Pages 125-180 in Benke, A. C. and C. E. Cushing, editors. Rivers
of North America. Elsevier Academic Press, New York, New York.
111
Wilkens, L. A., B. Wettring, E. Wagner, W. Wojtenek, and D. Russell. 2001. Prey
detection in selective feeding by paddlefish: is the electric sense sufficient? The
Journal of Experimental Biology 204:1381-1389.
Zigler, S. J., M. R. Dewey, B. C. Knights, A. L. Runstrom, and M. T. Steingraeber. 2003.
Movement and habitat use by radio-tagged paddlefish in the Upper Mississippi
River and tributaries. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 23:189-
205.
Zigler, S. G., M. R. Dewey, B. C. Knights, A. L. Runstrom, and M. T. Steingraeber.
2004. Hydrologic and hydraulic factors affecting passage of paddlefish through
dams in the Upper Mississippi River. Transactions of the American Fisheries
Society 133:160-172.
112
TABLE 1.—Paddlefish CPUE (mean number caught per 5-hr net day ± SE) in gill
nets at fixed bendway and tailrace sampling locations in four impoundments of the River
Section of the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway May to December of 2003.
Columbus Aliceville Gainesville Demopolis
Lake Lake Lake Lake Mean
Tailrace 0.00 ± 0.00 0.00 ± 0.00 0.00 ± 0.00 1.09 ± 0.66 0.27 ± 0.26
Bendway 0.00 ± 0.00 0.00 ± 0.00 0.08 ± 0.05 0.25 ± 0.15 0.08 ± 0.05
Mean 0.00 ± 0.00 0.00 ± 0.00 0.04 ± 0.03 0.67 ± 0.35
113
TABLE 2.—Characteristics of habitat (mean ± SE) used by radio-tagged adult
paddlefish (six in Columbus Lake and ten in Demopolis Lake) June 6 through July 7,
2004. Variables which significantly differ between lakes are denoted with asterisks (two
sample t test; α=0.05).
Columbus Demopolis
Lake Lake
Depth (m)* 3.8 ± 0.4 6.2 ± 0.7
Temperature (C) 27.4 ± 0.4 27.8 ± 0.3
Specific Conductance
(µS/cm)* 115.5 ± 1.6 132.7 ± 4.1
Use of Eddy Habitat (%) 39 ± 15 65 ± 5%
114
TABLE 3.—Results from multi-response permutation procedure (MRPP) analysis for
site fidelity of paddlefish radio-tagged in the flowing bendway of Demopolis Lake; P <
0.05 indicates significantly different spatial distribution between 2004 and 2005.
Fish # (Sex) Season 2004 N 2005 N P Site
Fidelity
30.050 D (Male) Winter 6 11 0.018 No
Spring 12 8 0.103 Yes
Summer 0 0 NA NA
30.030 S (Female) Winter 4 11 0.534 Yes
Spring 8 14 0.577 Yes
Summer 14 7 0.828 Yes
30.090 S (Unknown) Winter 5 12 0.517 Yes
Spring 14 15 0.089 Yes
Summer 14 5 0.002 No
30.110 S (Male) Winter 6 9 0.376 Yes
Spring 12 6 0.439 Yes
Summer 2 0 NA NA
30.130 S (Unknown) Winter 6 11 0.123 Yes
Spring 10 13 0.617 Yes
Summer 14 4 0.062 Yes
30.150 S (Female) Winter 5 11 0.080 Yes
Spring 9 9 0.725 Yes
Summer 14 7 0.011 No
30.190 S (Male) Winter 6 10 0.043 No
Spring 9 10 0.390 Yes
Summer 14 7 0.326 Yes
30.921 S (Male) Winter 5 11 0.058 Yes
Spring 13 15 0.064 Yes
Summer 15 7 0.696 Yes
115
TABLE 4.—Survival, and emigration (± SE) of juvenile paddlefish stocked into
backwater and mainstem habitats of Columbus Lake and radio-tracked from June 30 to
July 21, 2005. Abiotic environmental variable means are shown with standard errors.
Backwater Mainstem
Survival 0.05 ± 0.05 0.28 ± 0.09
Emigration 0.05 ± 0.04 0.07 ± 0.05
N 20 29
Fortson
Lake Pit 21 Channel Bendway Tailrace
Depth (m) 2.7 ± 0.1 3.2 ± 0.1 4.7 ± 0.3 4.5 ± 0.2 3.6 ± 0.2
Temperature (C) 29.3 ± 0.7 32.1 ± 0.5 28.9 ± 0.2 29.3 ± 1.2 29.1 ± 0.6
Specific
Conductance
(µS/cm) 46 ± 1 29 ± 1 133 ± 19 146 ± 34 108 ± 9
Dissolved Oxygen
(mg/L) 8.5 ± 0.3 7.4 ± 0.5 7.5 ± 0.5 8.5 ± 1.1 5.2 ± 1.8
Secchi Depth (cm) 60 ± 2 143 ± 10 45 ± 10 50 ± 7 29 ± 5
116
TABLE 5.—Zooplankton densities (mean or mean ± SE when available) in systems
which support paddlefish populations or have been reported as suitable for paddlefish
restoration in this study and others.
Water Body
Time of
Year
Cladocerans
per Liter
Cope-
pods per
Liter
Copepods
and
Cladocerans
per Liter
Zoo-
plankters
per Liter
Columbus Lk., MS
(tailrace)
June-
July 8 ± 2 11 ± 2 18 ± 2 105 ± 40
Demopolis Lk., AL
(tailrace) June 43 ± 9 18 ± 2 61 ± 8 400 ± 166
Trinity River, TXa
May-
Sept. 1 6 7 33
Missouri River, SDb Spring 5 to 35
Summer 2 to 10
Alabama River, AL
(tailrace)c Annual 30
a Blackwell et al. 1995
b Rosen and Hales 1981; Spring = April to mid-June; Summer = mid-June to early Sept.
c Hoxmeier and DeVries 1997
117
FIGURE 1.—Proposed framework for management of paddlefish in Mississippi.
PHASE IV
Monitor Success
PHASE III
Develop and Implement
Management Actions
Stable or Increasing
PHASE I
Distribution and Stock Assessment
PHASE II
Determination of
Limiting Factors
Declining
PHASE IV
Monitor Success
PHASE III
Develop and Implement
Management Actions
Stable or Increasing
PHASE I
Distribution and Stock Assessment
PHASE II
Determination of
Limiting Factors
Declining
PHASE III
Develop and Implement
Management Actions
Stable or Increasing
PHASE I
Distribution and Stock Assessment
PHASE II
Determination of
Limiting Factors
Declining
PHASE III
Develop and Implement
Management Actions
Stable or Increasing
PHASE I
Distribution and Stock Assessment
PHASE II
Determination of
Limiting Factors
Declining
PHASE III
Develop and Implement
Management Actions
Stable or Increasing
PHASE I
Distribution and Stock Assessment
PHASE II
Determination of
Limiting Factors
Declining
PHASE I
Distribution and Stock Assessment
PHASE II
Determination of
Limiting Factors
Declining
118
FIGURE 2.—Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway with selected tributaries.
119
FIGURE 3.—Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway arm of Demopolis Lake showing two
locations used for stock assessment: the flowing bendway between Howell Heflin Lock
and Howell Heflin Dam, and Twelvemile Bend.
120
FIGURE 4.—Locations of artificial substrates used to sample paddlefish eggs at
shallow (<3 m) and deep (≥3 m) sites in the flowing bendway of Demopolis Lake below
Howell Heflin Dam during spring 2005.
121
FIGURE 5.—Paddlefish taken from Fortson Lake, a backwater of Tibbee Creek.
Photograph provided by Clark Young.
122
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
640
670
700
730
760
790
820
850
880
910
940
970
1000
1030
1060
1090
1120
1150
Length (EFL in mm)
Frequency
102-mm
127-mm
156-mm
FIGURE 6.—Comparison of paddlefish caught in Demopolis Lake 2003-2005 using
three sizes of multifilament gill net mesh (102-, 127-, and 156-mm bar; N = 48, 117, 70
respectively).
123
FIGURE 7.—Length frequency histogram for paddlefish caught in gill nets set in
Demopolis Lake during the 2005 sample season in Twelvemile Bend (N = 55 males, 63
females) and the flowing bendway (N = 90 males, 41 females).
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
<730 760 790 820 850 880 910 940 970 1000 1030 1060 1120
Length (EFL in mm)
Frequency
Twelvemile Bend
Flowing Bendway
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
<730 760 790 820 850 880 910 940 970 1000 1030 1060 1090 1120
Length (EFL in mm)
Frequency
Twelvemile Bend
Flowing Bendway
MALES
FEMALES
124
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI <XI
Age
Frequency
FIGURE 8.—Catch curve for male paddlefish (N = 145) caught during the 2005
sample season in Demopolis Lake.
125
FIGURE 9.—Gage height and water temperature in the flowing bendway of
Demopolis Lake during spring 2005 and two indicators of spawning activity. Female
paddlefish were captured in the flowing bendway or Twelvemile Bend. Capture of one
or more paddlefish eggs on an artificial substrate was considered a success.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
2/28 3/14 3/28 4/11 4/25 5/9
Date
Gage Height (m)
0
5
10
15
20
25
Temperature (C)
Gage Height
Temperature
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2/28 3/14 3/28 4/11 4/25 5/9
Date
Gage Height (m)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Temperature (Celsius)
% Females Postspawn
% Successful Artificial Substrates
126
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Shallow
Gravel Deep Gravel Shallow
Bedrock Deep
Bedrock
Depth and Substrate
CPUE (Eggs/Day)
FIGURE 10.—Artificial substrate CPUE (paddlefish eggs per day) at shallow gravel
(depth <3 m; N =4), deep gravel (depth >3 m; N =3), shallow bedrock (N =1), and deep
bedrock (N =2) locations in the flowing bendway of Demopolis Lake between March 30
and April 6, 2005. Error bars represent 95% confidence interval where N >1.
127
FIGURE 11.—Selectivity of flowing bendway (FLB) habitat during 2004 (N = 11)
and 2005 (N = 9) and Twelvemile Bend (TWB) habitat during 2005 (N = 15) by
paddlefish which wintered in respective Demopolis Lake habitats. Values above grey
lines represent non-random selection (α=0.05).
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1/1/2005
1/21/2005
2/10/2005
3/2/2005
3/22/2005
4/11/2005
5/1/2005
5/21/2005
6/10/2005
6/30/2005
Number of Paddlefish in FLB
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1/1/2004
1/21/2004
2/10/2004
3/1/2004
3/21/2004
4/10/2004
4/30/2004
5/20/2004
6/9/2004
6/29/2004
Number of Paddlefish in FLB
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
1/1/2005
1/21/2005
2/10/2005
3/2/2005
3/22/2005
4/11/2005
5/1/2005
5/21/2005
6/10/2005
6/30/2005
Number of Paddlefish in TWB
128
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
0123456789101112131415
Age
Eye to Fork Length (mm
)
Demopolis Lake, AL
Tallapoosa River, AL
Lake Ponchartrain, LA
Atchafalaya River, LA
Lake Henderson, LA
Missouri River, SD/NE
FIGURE 12.—Comparison of Von Bertalanffy growth curves for paddlefish in
Demopolis Lake, the Tallapoosa River (Lein and DeVries 1998), Lake Ponchartrain,
Atchafalaya River, Lake Henderson (Reed et al. 1992), and the Missouri River (Rosen et
al. 1982). Curves shown are for males only with the exception of the three Louisiana
populations, which did not show sexual dichotomy in growth rates.
129
FIGURE 13.—Paddlefish locations in Twelvemile Bend, Demopolis Lake, during
2005. Navigation channel habitat is shown with hatch marks. The upstream (northern)
intersection of Twelvemile Bend and the navigation channel has been decreasing in depth
since 1977.
Barge Landing ●
130
APPENDIX A
SAS CODE FOR MONTE CARLO
HABITAT SELECTIVITY TEST
131
DATA a;
do sample = 1 to 10000000; *
do i = 1 to 11 by 1; **
random=ranuni(0);
output;
end;
end;
stop;
RUN;
DATA b; set a; if random le 0.068663; ***
PROC SORT; by sample;
PROC MEANS noprint N; by sample;
output out=c N=fish;
RUN;
PROC SORT; by fish;
RUN;
DATA d; set c; if fish ge 2; ****
PROC MEANS noprint N; output out=e N=ct;
RUN;
DATA f; set e; P=ct/10000000; *
RUN;
PROC PRINT;
RUN;
* Number of iterations is 10,000,000.
** Number of fish at large is 11.
*** Target habitat represents 6.8663% of available habitat.
**** Resultant P-value gives probability that 2 or more fish will be present in the target
habitat assuming random habitat use.
132
APPENDIX B
RADIO-TELEMETRY LOCATIONS FOR PADDLEFISH
IN THE TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE
WATERWAY
133
TABLE B1.—Radio-telemetry locations for paddlefish in Demopolis Lake and
tributaries. “HAB” indicates habitat type; “FLB”= flowing bendway; “NC”= navigation
channel; “NOX”= Noxubee River or Oktoc Creek; “TWB”= Twelvemile Bend. “TEMP”
indicates temperature in degrees Celsius. “DAM” indicates distance from dam in meters.
“BANK” indicates distance from right bank of Demopolis Lake in meters. Latitude and
longitude reported in decimal degrees (datum: WGS 1984).
DATE TIME FISH # HAB TEMP DAM BANK LONGITUDE LATITUDE
6/30/2003 1340 31.151 S FLB 30.3 410 74 -88.1593882 32.8454895
10/18/2003 1520 31.151 S FLB 21.5 905 25 -88.1622600 32.8417100
11/4/2003 1338 30.090 S FLB 20.5 4880 89 -88.1674200 32.8281500
11/4/2003 1426 31.151 S FLB 20.2 1310 133 -88.1656700 32.8395200
12/17/2003 911 30.320 S FLB 7.2 5215 49 -88.1643930 32.8298841
12/17/2003 919 30.090 S FLB 7.5 5355 23 -88.1630300 32.8306700
12/17/2003 927 30.130 S FLB 7.5 5300 32 -88.1635996 32.8303681
12/17/2003 933 31.151 S FLB 7.4 5420 105 -88.1622700 32.8299300
1/11/2004 900 30.190 S FLB 7.4 5475 69 -88.1616830 32.8301000
1/11/2004 902 30.320 S FLB 7.4 5495 19 -88.1612800 32.8304300
1/11/2004 903 30.010 S FLB 7.4 5410 68 -88.1623700 32.8302800
1/11/2004 904 30.050 D FLB 7.4 5465 50 -88.1617300 32.8303000
1/11/2004 905 30.110 S FLB 7.4 5380 58 -88.1627300 32.8303700
1/11/2004 908 30.130 S FLB 7.4 5450 25 -88.1618000 32.8305700
1/11/2004 910 30.921 S FLB 7.4 5365 54 -88.1628500 32.8304000
1/11/2004 946 30.090 S FLB 7.5 2845 88 -88.1806700 32.8372300
1/11/2004 1011 31.151 S FLB 7.5 1330 30 -88.1650200 32.8387300
2/1/2004 1425 30.010 S FLB 8.9 5365 29 -88.1629079 32.8306237
2/1/2004 1425 30.030 S FLB 8.9 5375 34 -88.1627996 32.8305842
2/1/2004 1425 30.050 D FLB 8.9 5425 82 -88.1622106 32.8301329
2/1/2004 1425 30.110 S FLB 8.9 5465 91 -88.1618758 32.8299469
2/1/2004 1425 30.130 S FLB 8.9 5370 31 -88.1628370 32.8306047
2/1/2004 1425 30.150 S FLB 8.9 5425 52 -88.1622175 32.8304105
2/1/2004 1425 30.190 S FLB 8.9 5395 48 -88.1625292 32.8304651
2/1/2004 1425 30.320 S FLB 8.9 5330 33 -88.1633300 32.8304604
2/1/2004 1425 31.151 S FLB 8.9 2680 119 -88.1791493 32.8381980
2/20/2004 1103 30.090 S FLB 8.0 5925 123 -88.1587067 32.8269663
2/20/2004 1127 30.130 S FLB 7.9 6270 42 -88.1554500 32.8253989
2/20/2004 1156 30.190 S FLB 8.0 5345 16 -88.1632075 32.8306691
2/20/2004 1205 30.010 S FLB 8.0 5370 18 -88.1628537 32.8307290
2/20/2004 1211 30.030 S FLB 8.0 5400 29 -88.1624790 32.8306291
2/20/2004 1214 30.110 S FLB 8.0 5410 37 -88.1623811 32.8305614
2/20/2004 1223 30.921 S FLB 8.0 5410 31 -88.1623632 32.8306097
2/20/2004 1227 30.050 D FLB 8.0 5375 31 -88.1627703 32.8306064
2/20/2004 1232 30.150 S FLB 8.0 5350 57 -88.1630345 32.8303364
2/20/2004 1237 30.320 S FLB 8.0 5360 21 -88.1629411 32.8306954
2/20/2004 1301 31.151 S FLB 8.0 2695 126 -88.1793236 32.8382170
2/20/2004 1405 30.110 S FLB 5385 49 -88.1626342 32.8304498
134
TABLE B1 (continued).
DATE TIME FISH # HAB TEMP DAM BANK LONGITUDE LATITUDE
2/20/2004 1409 30.050 D FLB 5385 58 -88.1626376 32.8303763
2/20/2004 1413 30.150 S FLB 5410 67 -88.1623772 32.8302865
2/20/2004 1417 30.190 S FLB 5385 12 -88.1626697 32.8307816
2/20/2004 1421 30.921 S FLB 5345 45 -88.1631334 32.8304196
2/20/2004 1424 30.320 S FLB 5355 14 -88.1630349 32.8307509
2/20/2004 1435 30.010 S FLB 5355 70 -88.1629871 32.8302274
2/20/2004 1443 30.090 S FLB 5850 108 -88.1592312 32.8275124
2/20/2004 1452 30.130 S FLB 6520 42 -88.1530635 32.8244864
2/27/2004 1028 30.921 S FLB 9.7 5410 47 -88.1623367 32.8304684
2/27/2004 1034 30.010 S FLB 9.7 5415 26 -88.1622845 32.8306506
2/27/2004 1039 30.110 S FLB 9.7 5350 51 -88.1630597 32.8303834
2/27/2004 1046 30.150 S FLB 9.7 5375 23 -88.1628156 32.8306855
2/27/2004 1049 30.190 S FLB 9.7 5370 30 -88.1628618 32.8306126
2/27/2004 1053 30.050 D FLB 9.7 5365 25 -88.1629136 32.8306556
2/27/2004 1057 30.320 S FLB 9.7 5355 11 -88.1631072 32.8307604
2/27/2004 1129 31.151 S FLB 9.9 2660 139 -88.1790380 32.8384201
2/27/2004 1137 30.030 S FLB 9.9 2680 107 -88.1790938 32.8380947
2/27/2004 1144 30.090 S FLB 9.9 2665 139 -88.1790747 32.8384055
2/27/2004 1201 30.130 S FLB 9.9 2515 132 -88.1771848 32.8386743
3/5/2004 639 30.090 S FLB 14.8 5405 36 -88.1624178 32.8305670
3/5/2004 648 30.150 S FLB 14.8 5355 17 -88.1630243 32.8307297
3/5/2004 706 30.030 S FLB 14.9 5460 63 -88.1618091 32.8301995
3/5/2004 711 30.921 S FLB 14.8 5515 29 -88.1610922 32.8302469
3/5/2004 743 30.050 D FLB 14.9 3495 24 -88.1800851 32.8317349
3/5/2004 755 31.151 S FLB 14.9 2660 145 -88.1790619 32.8384752
3/5/2004 806 30.010 S FLB 14.9 2590 130 -88.1780840 32.8385841
3/5/2004 810 30.130 S FLB 14.9 2505 136 -88.1771174 32.8387123
3/5/2004 827 30.110 S FLB 14.9 4625 66 -88.1701105 32.8276686
3/5/2004 1633 30.190 S FLB 14.9 3355 27 -88.1807711 32.8328481
3/9/2004 1024 30.150 S FLB 16.3 6265 15 -88.1552700 32.8256517
3/9/2004 1048 30.010 S FLB 16.4 5355 12 -88.1630640 32.8307633
3/9/2004 1118 30.921 S FLB 16.6 3860 156 -88.1783494 32.8284962
3/9/2004 1128 31.151 S FLB 16.6 3805 14 -88.1778502 32.8298231
3/9/2004 1159 30.090 S FLB 16.6 2660 143 -88.1790551 32.8384580
3/9/2004 1252 30.030 S NOX 16.8 3835 888 -88.1837759 32.8247331
3/9/2004 1459 30.130 S NC 16.4 15385 102 -88.0894263 32.7993134
3/9/2004 1512 30.320 S NC 16.4 17500 113 -88.0711742 32.8013869
3/12/2004 702 30.921 S NC 14.4 9020 22 -88.1323168 32.8334011
3/12/2004 756 30.110 S NC 14.4 20540 120 -88.0742482 32.7784500
3/12/2004 845 31.151 S NC 14.3 26735 110 -88.1073849 32.7545710
3/12/2004 959 30.150 S FLB 14.5 6240 15 -88.1556467 32.8256311
3/12/2004 1020 30.030 S FLB 14.5 5415 103 -88.1623074 32.8299531
3/12/2004 1026 30.130 S FLB 14.5 5425 94 -88.1622341 32.8300275
3/12/2004 1033 30.010 S FLB 14.5 5395 46 -88.1625309 32.8304802
135
TABLE B1 (continued).
DATE TIME FISH # HAB TEMP DAM BANK LONGITUDE LATITUDE
3/12/2004 1319 30.050 D FLB 14.6 3580 71 -88.1800946 32.8308526
3/12/2004 1326 30.090 S FLB 14.6 2685 122 -88.1791902 32.8382190
3/19/2004 1020 30.130 S FLB 16.2 8290 89 -88.1398296 32.8333283
3/19/2004 1041 30.030 S FLB 16.1 5445 32 -88.1618752 32.8305172
3/19/2004 1047 30.921 S FLB 16.1 5430 52 -88.1621157 32.8303882
3/19/2004 1051 30.150 S FLB 16.1 5415 66 -88.1623355 32.8302934
3/19/2004 1058 30.010 S FLB 16.1 5270 31 -88.1639215 32.8302730
3/19/2004 1100 30.190 S FLB 16.1 5290 34 -88.1637399 32.8303068
3/19/2004 1103 30.050 D FLB 16.1 5295 62 -88.1635804 32.8300854
3/19/2004 1200 30.090 S FLB 16.1 2700 115 -88.1792960 32.8381246
3/19/2004 1340 30.110 S NC 16.3 31320 22 -88.0810526 32.7209846
3/19/2004 1808 31.151 S NC 16.7 28990 50 -88.0975690 32.7365739
3/22/2004 1330 30.320 S NOX 3835 73703 -88.7775025 33.2710437
3/26/2004 817 30.320 S NOX 17.2 3835 73703 -88.7775025 33.2710437
3/26/2004 1104 30.110 S FLB 17.6 5860 103 -88.1590913 32.8274767
3/26/2004 1117 30.090 S FLB 17.6 5470 73 -88.1617706 32.8300893
3/26/2004 1121 30.921 S FLB 17.6 5500 42 -88.1613432 32.8302232
3/26/2004 1130 30.010 S FLB 17.6 5285 21 -88.1638158 32.8304098
3/26/2004 1148 30.130 S FLB 17.6 5395 103 -88.1625691 32.8299699
3/26/2004 1200 30.050 D FLB 17.6 4165 45 -88.1749788 32.8279398
3/26/2004 1317 30.030 S NC 17.8 13480 54 -88.1062081 32.8002427
3/26/2004 1342 30.190 S NC 17.8 16630 144 -88.0777564 32.8043299
3/26/2004 1350 30.150 S NC 18.2 16570 37 -88.0786590 32.8050407
3/26/2004 1753 31.151 S NC 18.0 9615 62 -88.1287892 32.8287577
3/31/2004 2028 30.320 S NOX 3835 73703 -88.7775025 33.2710437
4/2/2004 429 30.110 S FLB 17.6 4965 69 -88.1666738 32.8286012
4/2/2004 443 30.050 D FLB 17.6 4315 58 -88.1734721 32.8276500
4/2/2004 502 30.921 S FLB 18.0 2470 40 -88.1766975 32.8378440
4/2/2004 510 30.190 S FLB 18.0 1590 24 -88.1674156 32.8374694
4/2/2004 517 30.010 S FLB 18.0 1430 55 -88.1659939 32.8382693
4/2/2004 525 30.090 S FLB 18.0 75 47 -88.1569372 32.8477554
4/2/2004 735 30.050 D FLB 17.6 5390 69 -88.1625891 32.8302767
4/2/2004 751 30.110 S FLB 17.6 4375 76 -88.1728186 32.8274329
4/2/2004 802 30.921 S FLB 17.6 2435 63 -88.1763399 32.8380606
4/2/2004 810 30.190 S FLB 18.0 1530 40 -88.1668547 32.8377784
4/2/2004 814 30.010 S FLB 18.0 1535 54 -88.1669495 32.8378820
4/2/2004 820 30.090 S FLB 18.0 160 43 -88.1574397 32.8470908
4/2/2004 1049 30.050 D FLB 18.2 4250 42 -88.1741199 32.8278527
4/2/2004 1109 30.110 S FLB 18.2 3575 77 -88.1801890 32.8308784
4/2/2004 1118 30.921 S FLB 18.2 2765 109 -88.1799587 32.8378663
4/2/2004 1126 30.190 S FLB 18.2 2290 64 -88.1747427 32.8381081
4/2/2004 1139 30.010 S FLB 18.2 1400 14 -88.1654289 32.8381979
4/2/2004 1148 30.090 S FLB 18.2 185 68 -88.1578314 32.8470538
4/2/2004 1822 30.150 S NC 18.2 41230 117 -88.0683535 32.6868976
136
TABLE B1 (continued).
DATE TIME FISH # HAB TEMP DAM BANK LONGITUDE LATITUDE
4/2/2004 1858 30.130 S NC 18.2 29900 103 -88.0901634 32.7312691
4/2/2004 2030 30.921 S FLB 17.9 6830 53 -88.1497981 32.8243796
4/2/2004 2047 30.110 S FLB 17.9 4450 75 -88.1720066 32.8274390
4/2/2004 2056 30.010 S FLB 17.9 3530 73 -88.1803831 32.8312647
4/2/2004 2117 30.050 D FLB 17.9 75 64 -88.1571014 32.8478309
4/2/2004 2118 30.090 S FLB 17.9 50 100 -88.1573557 32.8482085
4/5/2004 1031 30.320 S NOX 18.8 3835 73696 -88.7774235 33.2710259
4/5/2004 1210 30.110 D NOX 18.8 3835 73699 -88.7764914 33.2719828
4/8/2004 850 30.110 D NOX 18.1 3835 73699 -88.7764914 33.2719828
4/8/2004 850 30.320 S NOX 18.1 3835 73696 -88.7774235 33.2710259
4/9/2004 1438 30.110 S FLB 19.1 3530 56 -88.1802106 32.8313159
4/9/2004 1448 30.050 D FLB 19.1 3765 39 -88.1784199 32.8298430
4/9/2004 1505 30.090 S FLB 19.1 2560 63 -88.1776730 32.8380265
4/9/2004 1601 30.190 S FLB 19.3 4570 62 -88.1707137 32.8276410
4/9/2004 1611 30.010 S FLB 19.3 5395 114 -88.1625500 32.8298666
4/9/2004 1638 31.151 S NC 19.4 12185 88 -88.1144890 32.8092898
4/9/2004 1717 30.921 S NC 19.4 24740 119 -88.1094458 32.7722831
4/9/2004 1750 30.130 S NC 19.4 29935 86 -88.0897629 32.7311756
4/9/2004 1846 30.110 S FLB 19.3 5280 65 -88.1637255 32.8300074
4/9/2004 1856 30.190 S FLB 19.2 3395 57 -88.1809040 32.8324351
4/9/2004 1930 30.090 S FLB 19.2 1610 35 -88.1676644 32.8375084
4/9/2004 2037 30.050 D FLB 19.1 5510 83 -88.1614280 32.8298422
4/9/2004 2144 30.110 S FLB 19.1 4330 59 -88.1732878 32.8276238
4/9/2004 2200 30.050 D FLB 19.1 3520 53 -88.1802396 32.8314245
4/15/2004 1720 30.110 D NOX 16.9 3835 73699 -88.7764914 33.2719828
4/15/2004 1730 30.320 S NOX 16.9 3835 73696 -88.7774235 33.2710259
4/16/2004 1049 30.030 S FLB 16.8 5460 21 -88.1616623 32.8305551
4/16/2004 1059 30.090 S FLB 16.8 5455 30 -88.1617884 32.8305125
4/16/2004 1104 30.921 S FLB 16.8 5455 32 -88.1618054 32.8305051
4/16/2004 1110 30.010 S FLB 16.8 5430 39 -88.1620923 32.8305118
4/16/2004 1123 30.150 S FLB 16.8 5260 55 -88.1639380 32.8300433
4/16/2004 1202 31.151 S FLB 17.3 2460 94 -88.1766017 32.8383351
4/16/2004 1210 30.130 S FLB 17.3 2475 97 -88.1767655 32.8383581
4/16/2004 1821 30.030 S FLB 17.3 5460 22 -88.1616580 32.8305516
4/16/2004 1829 30.090 S FLB 17.3 5515 19 -88.1610319 32.8303191
4/16/2004 1838 30.010 S FLB 17.3 5560 55 -88.1608835 32.8297607
4/16/2004 1851 30.921 S FLB 17.3 5665 49 -88.1600893 32.8290558
4/16/2004 1905 30.150 S FLB 17.3 4870 64 -88.1676255 32.8283199
4/16/2004 1919 30.130 S FLB 17.2 2655 108 -88.1788057 32.8382028
4/16/2004 1927 31.151 S FLB 17.2 2540 97 -88.1775233 32.8383576
4/23/2004 818 30.110 D NOX 21.8 3835 73726 -88.7768364 33.2720166
4/23/2004 827 30.320 S NOX 21.8 3835 73688 -88.7772248 33.2711128
4/23/2004 1048 30.010 S FLB 19.7 5635 4 -88.1599883 32.8295309
4/23/2004 1118 30.110 S FLB 19.7 5595 48 -88.1606184 32.8295413
137
TABLE B1 (continued).
DATE TIME FISH # HAB TEMP DAM BANK LONGITUDE LATITUDE
4/23/2004 1127 30.030 S FLB 19.7 5445 21 -88.1618673 32.8306183
4/23/2004 1146 30.050 D FLB 19.7 5355 34 -88.1630495 32.8305488
4/23/2004 1153 30.090 S FLB 19.7 5380 52 -88.1627241 32.8304236
4/23/2004 1202 30.921 S FLB 19.7 5305 77 -88.1634546 32.8299797
4/23/2004 1207 30.130 S FLB 19.7 5220 31 -88.1644225 32.8300596
4/23/2004 1215 30.150 S FLB 19.7 5475 34 -88.1615895 32.8304078
4/23/2004 1232 30.190 S FLB 19.7 2525 109 -88.1772917 32.8384626
4/23/2004 1238 31.151 S FLB 19.7 2490 75 -88.1769291 32.8381557
4/23/2004 1921 30.010 S FLB 20.1 5565 96 -88.1611073 32.8293958
4/23/2004 1931 30.050 D FLB 20.1 5540 17 -88.1607681 32.8302057
4/23/2004 1937 30.090 S FLB 20.1 5465 65 -88.1617662 32.8301694
4/23/2004 1944 30.030 S FLB 20.1 5400 59 -88.1624571 32.8303645
4/23/2004 1958 30.921 S FLB 20.1 5475 132 -88.1619009 32.8295543
4/23/2004 2011 30.150 S FLB 20.1 5270 98 -88.1637128 32.8297009
4/23/2004 2014 30.110 S FLB 20.1 4395 98 -88.1725780 32.8272362
4/23/2004 2040 30.130 S FLB 20.1 3925 96 -88.1774740 32.8285703
4/23/2004 2058 31.151 S FLB 20.1 2785 63 -88.1799221 32.8374060
4/23/2004 2116 30.190 S FLB 20.1 2595 95 -88.1780980 32.8382542
4/30/2004 1301 30.090 S FLB 21.4 5460 19 -88.1616620 32.8305794
4/30/2004 1325 30.921 S FLB 21.4 5455 34 -88.1617965 32.8304800
4/30/2004 1508 30.110 S FLB 22.0 2405 76 -88.1760011 32.8381801
4/30/2004 1515 30.190 S FLB 22.0 2445 48 -88.1764962 32.8379235
4/30/2004 1527 30.130 S FLB 22.0 2270 46 -88.1745779 32.8379364
4/30/2004 1602 30.030 S FLB 22.0 2425 88 -88.1761796 32.8382879
4/30/2004 1622 30.150 S FLB 22.0 165 107 -88.1580217 32.8474021
4/30/2004 1647 31.151 S FLB 22.0 2585 108 -88.1779737 32.8383969
4/30/2004 1750 30.010 S NC 22.0 13495 71 -88.1063190 32.8000487
4/30/2004 1940 30.010 S NC 21.5 9185 74 -88.1315615 32.8318574
4/30/2004 2006 30.090 S FLB 21.5 5360 39 -88.1629379 32.8305287
4/30/2004 2019 30.921 S FLB 21.5 4685 47 -88.1695273 32.8279418
4/30/2004 2036 30.130 S FLB 21.4 2115 31 -88.1731410 32.8372392
4/30/2004 2045 30.030 S FLB 21.4 1555 39 -88.1671258 32.8376752
4/30/2004 2053 30.190 S FLB 21.4 1035 56 -88.1634249 32.8410876
4/30/2004 2059 30.110 S FLB 21.4 1035 92 -88.1637440 32.8412705
4/30/2004 2107 30.150 S FLB 21.4 300 66 -88.1585929 32.8462512
4/30/2004 2110 31.151 S FLB 21.4 200 66 -88.1579040 32.8469446
5/1/2004 1139 30.320 S NOX 3835 73713 -88.7775522 33.2711413
5/1/2004 1144 30.110 D NOX 3835 73729 -88.7767708 33.2721144
5/7/2004 1244 30.320 S NOX 26.9 3835 73698 -88.7774178 33.2710550
5/7/2004 1249 30.110 D NOX 26.9 3835 73736 -88.7767803 33.2722085
5/7/2004 1627 30.010 S FLB 22.0 1385 88 -88.1658898 32.8387459
5/7/2004 1643 30.130 S FLB 22.0 385 53 -88.1590610 32.8455781
5/7/2004 1652 30.030 S FLB 22.0 350 38 -88.1586809 32.8457614
5/7/2004 1700 30.921 S FLB 22.0 315 64 -88.1586875 32.8461250
138
TABLE B1 (continued).
DATE TIME FISH # HAB TEMP DAM BANK LONGITUDE LATITUDE
5/7/2004 1705 30.190 S FLB 22.0 175 68 -88.1577754 32.8471072
5/7/2004 1716 30.090 S FLB 22.0 125 93 -88.1576355 32.8475764
5/7/2004 1725 30.150 S FLB 22.0 105 66 -88.1572376 32.8476012
5/7/2004 1742 31.151 S FLB 22.0 20 86 -88.1571189 32.8484160
5/7/2004 1922 30.010 S FLB 22.6 5375 87 -88.1627254 32.8301031
5/7/2004 1941 31.151 S FLB 22.4 1820 60 -88.1699339 32.8374941
5/7/2004 1953 30.030 S FLB 21.8 860 49 -88.1620444 32.8421661
5/7/2004 1957 30.130 S FLB 21.8 800 74 -88.1617594 32.8426802
5/7/2004 2003 30.921 S FLB 21.8 415 45 -88.1591356 32.8453229
5/7/2004 2017 30.090 S FLB 21.8 150 92 -88.1577780 32.8474323
5/7/2004 2021 30.150 S FLB 21.8 100 70 -88.1572641 32.8476460
5/7/2004 2024 30.190 S FLB 21.8 70 66 -88.1570904 32.8479066
5/7/2004 2114 30.010 S FLB 22.4 5480 36 -88.1615309 32.8303612
5/7/2004 2147 30.921 S FLB 21.9 1720 62 -88.1688449 32.8375312
5/7/2004 2158 30.090 S FLB 21.9 1275 80 -88.1650733 32.8393819
5/7/2004 2206 31.151 S FLB 21.9 1090 50 -88.1636839 32.8406113
5/7/2004 2214 30.030 S FLB 21.9 585 42 -88.1599374 32.8439079
5/7/2004 2231 30.150 S FLB 21.9 465 89 -88.1597747 32.8450727
5/7/2004 2241 30.190 S FLB 21.9 370 57 -88.1590118 32.8456933
5/7/2004 2247 30.130 S FLB 21.9 1545 42 -88.1670167 32.8377267
5/7/2004 2343 30.921 S FLB 22.2 6310 107 -88.1554309 32.8246042
5/21/2004 800 30.320 S NOX 25.8 3835 73713 -88.7775522 33.2711413
5/21/2004 804 30.110 D NOX 25.8 3835 73729 -88.7767708 33.2721144
5/21/2004 1006 30.030 S FLB 26.4 5490 40 -88.1614339 32.8302874
5/21/2004 1057 30.090 S FLB 27.7 2205 41 -88.1739601 32.8376374
5/21/2004 1101 30.130 S FLB 27.7 1730 15 -88.1689432 32.8371010
5/21/2004 1103 30.010 S FLB 27.7 1635 16 -88.1678724 32.8372844
5/21/2004 1111 30.190 S FLB 27.7 1115 60 -88.1638849 32.8404962
5/21/2004 1246 30.921 S FLB 27.7 2695 107 -88.1792073 32.8380655
5/21/2004 1330 30.150 S FLB 28.4 5230 41 -88.1643268 32.8300055
6/4/2004 1153 30.110 D NOX 27.1 3835 73714 -88.7766573 33.2720227
6/4/2004 1200 30.320 S NOX 27.1 3835 73672 -88.7772010 33.2709119
6/4/2004 1440 30.090 S FLB 27.1 2590 99 -88.1780147 32.8383060
6/4/2004 1447 31.151 S FLB 27.1 2595 122 -88.1780999 32.8385022
6/4/2004 1505 30.130 S FLB 27.1 2165 79 -88.1734601 32.8377992
6/4/2004 1516 30.190 S FLB 27.1 1350 25 -88.1651325 32.8385729
6/4/2004 1519 30.921 S FLB 27.1 1370 31 -88.1653132 32.8384948
6/4/2004 1524 30.010 S FLB 27.1 1415 45 -88.1657846 32.8383033
6/4/2004 1530 30.150 S FLB 27.1 1315 26 -88.1648730 32.8388306
6/4/2004 1800 30.030 S FLB 26.8 5345 21 -88.1632217 32.8306170
6/4/2004 2148 30.030 S FLB 25.9 5265 90 -88.1637959 32.8297520
6/4/2004 2227 30.921 S FLB 26.1 2885 72 -88.1808594 32.8368995
6/4/2004 2250 30.130 S FLB 26.1 2525 113 -88.1773011 32.8385035
6/4/2004 2258 30.090 S FLB 26.1 2500 108 -88.1770216 32.8384571
139
TABLE B1 (continued).
DATE TIME FISH # HAB TEMP DAM BANK LONGITUDE LATITUDE
6/4/2004 2327 30.190 S FLB 26.1 1575 31 -88.1672841 32.8375672
6/4/2004 2346 30.010 S FLB 26.1 1560 17 -88.1671007 32.8374741
6/5/2004 25 30.150 S FLB 26.1 1625 12 -88.1677278 32.8372795
6/5/2004 45 31.151 S FLB 26.1 1445 38 -88.1659942 32.8380735
6/11/2004 1653 30.190 S FLB 29.2 1410 15 -88.1655587 32.8381114
6/11/2004 1703 30.010 S FLB 29.2 1310 30 -88.1648617 32.8388866
6/11/2004 1723 30.150 S FLB 29.2 1555 25 -88.1670886 32.8375520
6/11/2004 1740 30.090 S FLB 29.6 2480 123 -88.1768118 32.8385932
6/11/2004 1742 30.130 S FLB 29.6 2470 128 -88.1766923 32.8386362
6/11/2004 1747 31.151 S FLB 29.6 2380 55 -88.1757871 32.8379981
6/11/2004 1752 30.921 S FLB 29.6 2445 77 -88.1764103 32.8381872
6/11/2004 1832 30.030 S FLB 29.0 5625 13 -88.1601342 32.8295417
6/11/2004 2102 30.130 S FLB 27.0 2270 31 -88.1746374 32.8378083
6/11/2004 2149 30.150 S FLB 26.9 635 17 -88.1600975 32.8434086
6/11/2004 2208 30.190 S FLB 27.0 1285 41 -88.1648010 32.8391063
6/11/2004 2211 31.151 S FLB 27.0 1305 41 -88.1649437 32.8389683
6/11/2004 2213 30.010 S FLB 27.0 1305 41 -88.1649400 32.8389677
6/11/2004 2246 30.090 S FLB 26.8 2295 65 -88.1748346 32.8381169
6/11/2004 2325 30.030 S FLB 26.9 5395 35 -88.1625237 32.8305763
6/12/2004 15 30.921 S FLB 26.6 1405 38 -88.1656846 32.8382895
6/16/2004 1830 30.110 D NOX 3835 73714 -88.7766573 33.2720227
6/16/2004 1841 30.320 S NOX 3835 73672 -88.7772010 33.2709119
6/19/2004 1630 30.921 S FLB 29.8 190 62 -88.1577961 32.8469953
6/19/2004 1654 30.190 S FLB 29.8 1165 58 -88.1641587 32.8401103
6/19/2004 1700 30.010 S FLB 29.8 1305 93 -88.1653392 32.8392947
6/19/2004 1707 31.151 S FLB 29.8 1450 55 -88.1661684 32.8381631
6/19/2004 1720 30.150 S FLB 29.8 1640 74 -88.1680830 32.8377770
6/19/2004 1732 30.130 S FLB 29.8 2185 66 -88.1736594 32.8377544
6/19/2004 1752 30.090 S FLB 29.8 2595 123 -88.1781059 32.8385093
6/19/2004 1819 30.030 S FLB 29.6 5370 57 -88.1628186 32.8303747
6/19/2004 2025 30.030 S FLB 29.0 5450 103 -88.1620535 32.8298904
6/19/2004 2055 31.151 S FLB 28.7 2270 61 -88.1745340 32.8380657
6/19/2004 2107 30.090 S FLB 28.7 2260 70 -88.1744236 32.8381306
6/19/2004 2121 30.130 S FLB 28.7 1570 63 -88.1673328 32.8378504
6/19/2004 2134 30.190 S FLB 28.7 825 86 -88.1620583 32.8425918
6/19/2004 2149 30.010 S FLB 28.8 215 67 -88.1580350 32.8468293
6/19/2004 2157 30.921 S FLB 28.8 170 60 -88.1576386 32.8471214
6/19/2004 2203 30.150 S FLB 28.8 150 57 -88.1574685 32.8472468
6/25/2004 1725 30.090 S FLB 28.4 2200 36 -88.1739100 32.8375656
6/25/2004 1807 30.010 S FLB 28.4 1950 33 -88.1712874 32.8372209
6/25/2004 1814 30.190 S FLB 28.4 1385 35 -88.1654834 32.8384093
6/25/2004 1837 30.150 S FLB 28.4 240 95 -88.1584593 32.8467965
6/25/2004 1838 30.921 S FLB 28.4 240 93 -88.1584559 32.8467821
6/25/2004 1907 30.130 S FLB 28.4 2395 107 -88.1758381 32.8384594
140
TABLE B1 (continued).
DATE TIME FISH # HAB TEMP DAM BANK LONGITUDE LATITUDE
6/25/2004 1934 30.030 S FLB 28.3 5375 27 -88.1627762 32.8306463
6/25/2004 2132 30.010 S FLB 28.3 5510 80 -88.1614195 32.8298770
6/25/2004 2154 30.030 S FLB 28.3 5435 39 -88.1620085 32.8304883
6/25/2004 2231 30.090 S FLB 28.0 2535 116 -88.1774882 32.8385296
6/25/2004 2251 30.130 S FLB 28.0 2590 115 -88.1780404 32.8384473
6/25/2004 2332 30.190 S FLB 28.0 1315 13 -88.1647818 32.8387291
6/25/2004 2342 30.150 S FLB 28.0 1335 9 -88.1648911 32.8385719
6/25/2004 2352 30.921 S FLB 28.0 1320 22 -88.1648682 32.8387750
6/26/2004 2 31.151 S FLB 28.0 1435 15 -88.1657663 32.8379571
7/14/2004 840 30.110 D NOX 30.2 3835 73714 -88.7766573 33.2720227
7/14/2004 841 30.320 S NOX 30.2 3835 73672 -88.7772010 33.2709119
9/7/2004 1700 30.110 D NOX 29.0 3835 73729 -88.7767708 33.2721144
9/17/2004 1750 30.110 D NOX 29.0 3835 73729 -88.7767708 33.2721144
10/19/2004 1010 30.090 S NC 22.5 8995 10 -88.1324881 32.8337827
10/19/2004 1033 30.030 S FLB 22.2 5355 44 -88.1630479 32.8304594
10/19/2004 1052 30.130 S FLB 22.2 2315 36 -88.1750789 32.8378628
10/19/2004 1100 30.190 S FLB 22.2 1445 51 -88.1660869 32.8381645
10/19/2004 1120 30.921 S FLB 22.2 165 96 -88.1579262 32.8473481
10/19/2004 1124 30.010 S FLB 22.2 95 103 -88.1575541 32.8478348
10/19/2004 1128 30.150 S FLB 22.2 50 49 -88.1568543 32.8480178
11/4/2004 1400 30.110 D NOX 21.5 3835 73729 -88.7767708 33.2721144
11/13/2004 1036 30.211 D TWB 18.8 83500 65 -87.8524005 32.5964211
11/13/2004 1208 30.130 D TWB 18.2 78710 94 -87.8647491 32.6210021
11/13/2004 1251 30.050 S TWB 18.2 78225 26 -87.8699293 32.6217118
11/13/2004 1742 30.010 D TWB 18.1 76055 86 -87.8914050 32.6167865
11/13/2004 1757 30.050 S TWB 18.1 78985 65 -87.8618429 32.6212703
11/13/2004 1806 30.130 D TWB 18.1 80265 91 -87.8530947 32.6141337
11/13/2004 1819 30.211 D TWB 18.1 84805 29 -87.8602634 32.5909121
12/2/2004 1700 30.110 D NOX 5.7 3835 73729 -88.7767708 33.2721144
12/30/2004 1126 30.050 D FLB 5.7 5520 30 -88.1610387 32.8302069
12/30/2004 1140 30.090 S FLB 5.8 5385 67 -88.1626462 32.8302886
12/30/2004 1206 30.921 S FLB 5.8 2790 80 -88.1800622 32.8375119
12/30/2004 1316 30.030 S FLB 5.8 5390 49 -88.1625572 32.8304518
12/30/2004 1320 30.070 S FLB 5.8 5435 53 -88.1620412 32.8303658
12/30/2004 1325 30.110 S FLB 5.8 5385 67 -88.1626462 32.8302886
12/30/2004 1332 30.190 S FLB 5.8 5280 45 -88.1638129 32.8301799
12/30/2004 1335 30.150 S FLB 5.8 5410 54 -88.1623620 32.8304013
12/30/2004 1338 30.130 S FLB 5.8 5515 48 -88.1612002 32.8300959
12/30/2004 1415 30.190 D NC 6.1 14020 137 -88.1032779 32.7959717
12/30/2004 1605 30.190 D NC 6.1 14400 65 -88.0993000 32.7962042
1/3/2005 1035 30.211 D TWB 8.1 85025 10 -87.8616807 32.5924915
1/3/2005 1138 30.130 D TWB 7.6 80605 98 -87.8503063 32.6120352
1/3/2005 1144 30.010 D TWB 7.6 80925 79 -87.8469223 32.6113248
1/3/2005 1150 30.050 S TWB 7.6 81200 53 -87.8440197 32.6107889
141
TABLE B1 (continued).
DATE TIME FISH # HAB TEMP DAM BANK LONGITUDE LATITUDE
1/5/2005 1103 30.712 D TWB 8.1 82385 45 -87.8429426 32.6016211
1/5/2005 1120 30.211 D TWB 8.1 85025 10 -87.8616807 32.5924915
1/5/2005 1200 30.010 D TWB 8.1 78765 87 -87.8641966 32.6210731
1/5/2005 1203 30.682 D TWB 8.1 78825 100 -87.8635363 32.6209503
1/5/2005 1207 30.682 S TWB 8.1 79095 39 -87.8606610 32.6214801
1/5/2005 1213 30.130 D TWB 8.1 79515 26 -87.8563745 32.6204333
1/5/2005 1220 30.691 D TWB 8.1 79900 74 -87.8548499 32.6171580
1/7/2005 1200 30.921 S FLB 11.5 5510 48 -88.1612340 32.8301161
1/7/2005 1208 30.030 S FLB 11.5 5470 63 -88.1617344 32.8301778
1/7/2005 1215 30.050 D FLB 11.5 5430 54 -88.1621074 32.8303675
1/7/2005 1219 30.070 S FLB 11.5 5505 33 -88.1611761 32.8302443
1/7/2005 1223 30.110 S FLB 11.5 5500 49 -88.1613501 32.8301586
1/7/2005 1227 30.130 S FLB 11.5 5420 62 -88.1622567 32.8303270
1/7/2005 1255 30.150 S FLB 9.8 2200 53 -88.1738876 32.8377217
1/7/2005 1258 30.090 S FLB 9.8 2200 27 -88.1739733 32.8374973
1/7/2005 1304 30.190 S FLB 9.8 1570 19 -88.1672140 32.8374676
1/7/2005 1719 30.130 S FLB 10.7 5685 22 -88.1597369 32.8290881
1/7/2005 1730 30.070 S FLB 10.5 5405 93 -88.1624571 32.8300583
1/7/2005 1733 30.921 S FLB 10.5 5335 70 -88.1631787 32.8301491
1/7/2005 1735 30.110 S FLB 10.5 5300 91 -88.1634354 32.8298480
1/7/2005 1739 30.030 S FLB 10.5 5435 68 -88.1620892 32.8302360
1/7/2005 1746 30.050 D FLB 10.5 5635 16 -88.1600848 32.8294571
1/7/2005 1829 30.190 S FLB 9.9 1665 18 -88.1682050 32.8372087
1/7/2005 1834 30.090 S FLB 9.9 2435 98 -88.1763268 32.8383784
1/7/2005 1836 30.150 S FLB 9.9 2480 113 -88.1768201 32.8384974
1/12/2005 1309 31.044 D TWB 13.2 81270 25 -87.8432865 32.6105047
1/12/2005 1317 30.682 S TWB 13.2 81100 47 -87.8449960 32.6111772
1/12/2005 1322 30.050 S TWB 13.2 80855 46 -87.8475502 32.6117371
1/12/2005 1326 31.044 S TWB 13.2 80710 67 -87.8490998 32.6118961
1/12/2005 1336 30.010 D TWB 13.2 80005 101 -87.8545525 32.6162330
1/12/2005 1340 30.752 S TWB 13.2 80145 47 -87.8533987 32.6153093
1/12/2005 1349 30.130 D TWB 13.2 79135 32 -87.8602669 32.6215358
1/12/2005 1445 30.211 D TWB 13.1 85510 36 -87.8641233 32.5963927
1/12/2005 1451 30.691 D TWB 13.1 85475 61 -87.8637410 32.5961738
1/12/2005 1458 30.190 D TWB 13.1 84970 47 -87.8610647 32.5922300
1/12/2005 1508 30.712 D TWB 13.1 83710 87 -87.8533561 32.5946831
1/12/2005 1513 30.682 D TWB 13.1 83455 58 -87.8521482 32.5967740
1/12/2005 1553 30.691 S TWB 13.1 81225 61 -87.8438315 32.6105464
1/12/2005 1608 30.712 S TWB 13.1 79225 42 -87.8592810 32.6213517
1/12/2005 1628 30.130 D TWB 13.1 79175 24 -87.8598036 32.6215697
1/12/2005 1635 30.752 S TWB 13.1 79685 25 -87.8552415 32.6191154
1/12/2005 1640 30.010 D TWB 13.1 79925 81 -87.8547671 32.6169110
1/12/2005 1647 31.044 S TWB 13.1 80700 52 -87.8491481 32.6120558
1/12/2005 1653 30.682 S TWB 13.1 81080 48 -87.8452443 32.6112401
142
TABLE B1 (continued).
DATE TIME FISH # HAB TEMP DAM BANK LONGITUDE LATITUDE
1/12/2005 1656 31.044 D TWB 13.1 81285 39 -87.8432588 32.6102599
1/12/2005 1700 30.050 S TWB 13.1 81315 48 -87.8431676 32.6100046
1/12/2005 1711 30.712 D TWB 13.1 83475 42 -87.8520788 32.5965378
1/12/2005 1716 30.682 D TWB 13.1 83680 86 -87.8532776 32.5949229
1/12/2005 1724 30.190 D TWB 13.1 84980 35 -87.8612316 32.5922572
1/12/2005 1729 30.691 D TWB 13.1 81290 41 -87.8432467 32.6102201
1/12/2005 1733 30.211 D TWB 13.1 85510 22 -87.8642588 32.5963463
1/12/2005 1754 30.691 S TWB 13.1 81300 32 -87.8431283 32.6102145
1/12/2005 1809 30.712 S TWB 13.1 79240 25 -87.8591066 32.6214843
1/21/2005 1025 30.190 S FLB 8.6 2755 93 -88.1797700 32.8377671
1/21/2005 1033 30.090 S FLB 8.6 2420 82 -88.1761517 32.8382341
1/21/2005 1037 30.130 S FLB 8.6 2370 85 -88.1756019 32.8382735
1/21/2005 1126 30.030 S FLB 8.3 5415 55 -88.1623360 32.8303955
1/21/2005 1135 30.070 S FLB 8.3 5340 86 -88.1630880 32.8300278
1/21/2005 1139 30.110 S FLB 8.3 5365 88 -88.1628115 32.8300937
1/21/2005 1146 30.150 S FLB 8.3 5255 46 -88.1640245 32.8301017
1/21/2005 1152 30.921 S FLB 8.3 5400 60 -88.1624970 32.8303545
1/21/2005 1211 30.050 D FLB 9.0 7815 24 -88.1443724 32.8314868
1/21/2005 1639 30.050 D FLB 8.9 7820 18 -88.1443706 32.8315770
1/21/2005 1728 30.090 S FLB 8.4 1430 30 -88.1658172 32.8380993
1/21/2005 1739 30.130 S FLB 8.4 2510 87 -88.1771517 32.8382665
1/21/2005 1744 30.090 S FLB 8.4 2740 98 -88.1796317 32.8378611
1/21/2005 1755 30.150 S FLB 8.2 5255 98 -88.1638741 32.8296411
1/21/2005 1801 30.070 S FLB 8.2 5350 77 -88.1630086 32.8301507
1/21/2005 1807 30.110 S FLB 8.2 5355 39 -88.1630339 32.8305057
1/21/2005 1813 30.921 S FLB 8.2 5440 30 -88.1619278 32.8305512
1/21/2005 1816 30.030 S FLB 8.2 5395 59 -88.1625435 32.8303659
1/26/2005 1054 30.050 S TWB 8.6 84460 4 -87.8570205 32.5890070
1/26/2005 1107 30.130 D TWB 8.6 84410 70 -87.8566032 32.5896642
1/26/2005 1113 30.682 S TWB 8.6 84255 37 -87.8549361 32.5899762
1/26/2005 1122 30.691 D TWB 8.6 84375 73 -87.8562092 32.5897447
1/26/2005 1130 30.752 S TWB 8.6 85085 32 -87.8618269 32.5930741
1/26/2005 1139 30.211 D TWB 8.6 85510 68 -87.8638061 32.5964993
1/26/2005 1145 30.712 D TWB 8.6 85100 44 -87.8617737 32.5932156
1/26/2005 1154 30.190 D TWB 8.6 86500 81 -87.8620554 32.6049626
1/26/2005 1234 30.682 D TWB 8.6 84455 57 -87.8570582 32.5894849
1/26/2005 1251 31.044 D TWB 9.3 80825 76 -87.8479515 32.6115346
1/26/2005 1259 31.044 S TWB 9.3 80880 89 -87.8474389 32.6113246
1/26/2005 1304 30.010 D TWB 9.3 80815 80 -87.8480944 32.6115231
1/26/2005 1309 30.691 S TWB 9.3 80960 107 -87.8466523 32.6110147
1/26/2005 1314 30.712 S TWB 9.3 80815 63 -87.8480147 32.6116648
1/26/2005 1545 30.752 D NC 8.4 59905 71 -88.0434008 32.5970007
1/26/2005 1645 30.752 D NC 8.4 60885 76 -88.0333045 32.5991779
1/26/2005 1814 30.691 S TWB 8.6 81445 48 -87.8424219 32.6089781
143
TABLE B1 (continued).
DATE TIME FISH # HAB TEMP DAM BANK LONGITUDE LATITUDE
1/26/2005 1825 30.010 D TWB 8.6 80820 89 -87.8480375 32.6114324
1/26/2005 1851 31.044 S TWB 8.6 80435 71 -87.8517819 32.6130302
1/26/2005 1904 31.044 D TWB 8.6 82820 51 -87.8470889 32.5997577
1/26/2005 1910 30.712 S TWB 8.6 83020 72 -87.8492512 32.5996580
1/26/2005 1919 30.691 D TWB 9.0 84300 54 -87.8554952 32.5898498
1/26/2005 1924 30.752 S TWB 9.0 84325 65 -87.8557461 32.5898371
1/26/2005 1928 30.050 S TWB 9.0 84315 51 -87.8556114 32.5897576
1/26/2005 1933 30.682 D TWB 8.8 84510 31 -87.8576259 32.5892957
1/26/2005 1940 30.130 D TWB 9.0 84845 42 -87.8604183 32.5912699
1/26/2005 1947 30.682 S TWB 9.0 84905 56 -87.8606404 32.5917374
1/26/2005 1958 30.190 D TWB 9.1 86620 79 -87.8616356 32.6060259
1/26/2005 2008 30.712 D TWB 9.1 86470 70 -87.8622662 32.6047747
1/26/2005 2050 30.211 D TWB 9.0 84865 39 -87.8605722 32.5913907
2/4/2005 1322 30.030 S FLB 8.6 5425 41 -88.1621626 32.8305063
2/4/2005 1328 30.050 D FLB 8.6 5285 47 -88.1637341 32.8301812
2/4/2005 1332 30.090 S FLB 8.6 5405 31 -88.1623958 32.8306095
2/4/2005 1349 30.070 S FLB 8.5 2735 106 -88.1796298 32.8379397
2/4/2005 1401 30.110 S FLB 8.5 2460 128 -88.1766368 32.8386433
2/4/2005 1406 30.130 S FLB 8.5 2500 107 -88.1770425 32.8384459
2/4/2005 1411 30.150 S FLB 8.5 2635 102 -88.1785440 32.8382353
2/4/2005 1423 30.921 S FLB 8.5 1370 41 -88.1654009 32.8385603
2/4/2005 1426 30.190 S FLB 8.5 1375 25 -88.1653148 32.8384270
2/4/2005 1640 30.030 S FLB 8.5 5400 45 -88.1624575 32.8304900
2/4/2005 1644 30.050 D FLB 8.5 5590 5 -88.1603350 32.8298939
2/4/2005 1647 30.090 S FLB 8.5 5355 15 -88.1630659 32.8307317
2/4/2005 1657 30.150 S FLB 8.5 4530 44 -88.1711477 32.8277690
2/4/2005 1706 30.070 S FLB 8.1 2775 54 -88.1797698 32.8373930
2/4/2005 1712 30.130 S FLB 8.1 2465 74 -88.1766355 32.8381499
2/4/2005 1716 30.110 S FLB 8.1 2485 106 -88.1768746 32.8384351
2/4/2005 1721 30.190 S FLB 8.1 1350 17 -88.1650743 32.8385199
2/4/2005 1724 30.921 S FLB 8.1 1335 32 -88.1650704 32.8387185
2/9/2005 1151 30.682 S TWB 9.8 81425 71 -87.8427492 32.6090458
2/9/2005 1212 30.010 D TWB 9.8 81270 27 -87.8433220 32.6105113
2/9/2005 1216 30.050 S TWB 9.8 81170 23 -87.8441087 32.6111178
2/9/2005 1224 31.044 D TWB 9.8 80840 80 -87.8477926 32.6114717
2/9/2005 1230 31.044 S TWB 9.8 80535 93 -87.8509563 32.6123440
2/9/2005 1242 30.712 D TWB 9.8 80250 28 -87.8526194 32.6145781
2/9/2005 1252 30.712 S TWB 9.8 79215 25 -87.8593672 32.6215140
2/9/2005 1310 30.682 D TWB 10.1 82985 63 -87.8488418 32.5996602
2/9/2005 1314 30.691 S TWB 10.1 83000 69 -87.8490114 32.5996780
2/9/2005 1319 30.190 D TWB 10.1 83540 86 -87.8527790 32.5961175
2/9/2005 1328 30.211 D TWB 10.1 84340 77 -87.8559754 32.5898722
2/9/2005 1337 30.130 D TWB 10.1 85530 28 -87.8642992 32.5966055
2/9/2005 1342 30.752 S TWB 10.1 85960 76 -87.8639994 32.6004685
144
TABLE B1 (continued).
DATE TIME FISH # HAB TEMP DAM BANK LONGITUDE LATITUDE
2/9/2005 1606 30.752 D TWB 10.3 78400 104 -87.8681463 32.6208887
2/9/2005 1708 30.752 S TWB 10.1 86830 71 -87.8628457 32.6076893
2/9/2005 1716 30.211 D TWB 10.1 86015 81 -87.8638342 32.6008899
2/9/2005 1721 30.130 D TWB 10.1 85540 23 -87.8643804 32.5966614
2/9/2005 1729 30.691 D TWB 10.1 84725 37 -87.8596680 32.5903183
2/9/2005 1741 30.682 D TWB 10.1 82765 27 -87.8464081 32.5996463
2/9/2005 1744 30.691 S TWB 10.1 82735 82 -87.8462648 32.6002404
2/9/2005 1755 30.682 S TWB 10.3 81215 45 -87.8438323 32.6107713
2/9/2005 1803 31.044 S TWB 10.3 80900 51 -87.8471141 32.6116215
2/9/2005 1809 30.050 S TWB 10.3 80665 28 -87.8494142 32.6123746
2/9/2005 1816 30.010 D TWB 10.3 80360 106 -87.8525911 32.6132931
2/9/2005 1821 31.044 D TWB 10.3 79825 63 -87.8550648 32.6178217
2/9/2005 1827 30.712 S TWB 10.3 79195 20 -87.8595664 32.6215796
2/9/2005 1837 30.752 D TWB 10.3 77625 31 -87.8762791 32.6224847
2/18/2005 1246 30.050 D FLB 13.1 7525 33 -88.1458598 32.8291442
2/18/2005 1304 30.030 S FLB 13.1 5505 44 -88.1612694 32.8301788
2/18/2005 1312 30.150 S FLB 13.1 5405 92 -88.1624254 32.8300622
2/18/2005 1315 30.090 S FLB 13.1 5450 42 -88.1618778 32.8304253
2/18/2005 1317 30.190 S FLB 13.1 5445 54 -88.1619621 32.8303348
2/18/2005 1322 30.110 S FLB 13.1 5360 54 -88.1629271 32.8303970
2/18/2005 1326 30.921 S FLB 13.1 5455 47 -88.1618177 32.8303601
2/18/2005 1341 30.130 S FLB 13.1 2490 107 -88.1769218 32.8384451
2/18/2005 1349 30.070 S FLB 13.1 2425 96 -88.1762085 32.8383560
2/18/2005 1713 30.030 S FLB 12.6 5380 41 -88.1626999 32.8305209
2/18/2005 1716 30.090 S FLB 12.6 5380 42 -88.1627066 32.8305175
2/18/2005 1721 30.110 S FLB 12.6 5375 55 -88.1627715 32.8303914
2/18/2005 1725 30.190 S FLB 12.6 5480 52 -88.1615892 32.8302336
2/18/2005 1728 30.921 S FLB 12.6 5505 60 -88.1613479 32.8300492
2/18/2005 1732 30.150 S FLB 12.6 5225 29 -88.1644075 32.8300932
2/18/2005 1758 30.070 S FLB 12.3 2500 92 -88.1770384 32.8383151
2/18/2005 1803 30.130 S FLB 12.3 2600 100 -88.1781597 32.8382905
2/18/2005 1819 30.050 D FLB 12.3 7585 7 -88.1458310 32.8296984
2/23/2005 1117 30.691 D TWB 14.2 81005 99 -87.8461260 32.6109968
2/23/2005 1129 30.050 S TWB 14.2 79505 60 -87.8566345 32.6202043
2/23/2005 1146 30.691 S TWB 14.2 77655 60 -87.8759600 32.6221849
2/23/2005 1201 30.712 S TWB 14.2 79230 18 -87.8592071 32.6215608
2/23/2005 1209 30.130 D TWB 14.2 80005 65 -87.8541962 32.6163521
2/23/2005 1229 30.682 S TWB 14.5 83150 81 -87.8506320 32.5992283
2/23/2005 1238 30.682 D TWB 14.5 83330 66 -87.8517133 32.5978102
2/23/2005 1302 30.211 D TWB 14.3 85505 34 -87.8641257 32.5963484
2/23/2005 1307 31.044 S TWB 14.3 85525 76 -87.8637807 32.5966490
2/23/2005 1317 30.752 S TWB 14.3 86100 32 -87.8640519 32.6017854
2/23/2005 1428 30.190 D NC 14.0 71680 59 -87.9279351 32.6323661
2/23/2005 1513 30.712 D NC 14.0 60980 48 -88.0323610 32.5995551
145
TABLE B1 (continued).
DATE TIME FISH # HAB TEMP DAM BANK LONGITUDE LATITUDE
3/4/2005 1352 30.691 D TWB 12.2 79270 40 -87.8587933 32.6212872
3/4/2005 1403 30.712 S TWB 12.2 79235 25 -87.8591865 32.6214970
3/4/2005 1444 30.752 S TWB 12.5 86635 48 -87.8619353 32.6061877
3/4/2005 1501 31.044 S TWB 12.5 84965 30 -87.8612092 32.5921234
3/4/2005 1507 30.211 D TWB 12.5 84970 50 -87.8610412 32.5922418
3/4/2005 1518 30.050 S TWB 12.5 83725 98 -87.8535072 32.5945118
3/4/2005 1522 30.190 D TWB 12.5 83560 46 -87.8524497 32.5958232
3/4/2005 1526 30.682 D TWB 12.5 83390 69 -87.8519989 32.5973156
3/4/2005 1537 30.682 S TWB 11.8 81850 21 -87.8403126 32.6057695
3/4/2005 1546 31.044 D TWB 11.8 81465 55 -87.8423950 32.6088290
3/5/2005 1204 30.050 D FLB 11.5 6265 38 -88.1554489 32.8254372
3/5/2005 1219 30.712 D FLB 11.5 5435 68 -88.1621043 32.8302393
3/5/2005 1227 30.921 S FLB 11.5 5375 65 -88.1627731 32.8303041
3/5/2005 1234 30.030 S FLB 11.5 5445 53 -88.1619371 32.8303405
3/5/2005 1239 30.130 D FLB 11.5 5365 61 -88.1628528 32.8303388
3/5/2005 1247 30.150 S FLB 11.5 5285 108 -88.1635373 32.8296571
3/5/2005 1303 30.090 S FLB 11.7 2655 135 -88.1789725 32.8384080
3/5/2005 1313 30.190 S FLB 11.7 2410 92 -88.1760211 32.8383204
3/5/2005 1317 30.130 S FLB 11.7 2325 57 -88.1751753 32.8380476
3/5/2005 1327 30.070 S FLB 11.7 1795 59 -88.1696225 32.8374921
3/5/2005 1612 30.752 D NC 11.5 11440 23 -88.1194581 32.8145138
3/5/2005 1645 30.050 D FLB 11.5 7800 25 -88.1444802 32.8313803
3/5/2005 1709 30.712 D FLB 11.5 5455 129 -88.1620860 32.8296573
3/5/2005 1716 30.090 S FLB 11.5 5425 44 -88.1622009 32.8304808
3/5/2005 1720 30.030 S FLB 11.5 5355 46 -88.1630466 32.8304323
3/5/2005 1725 30.190 S FLB 11.5 5220 20 -88.1644828 32.8301484
3/5/2005 1731 30.150 S FLB 11.5 5060 59 -88.1657938 32.8290581
3/5/2005 1741 30.130 D FLB 11.5 4040 62 -88.1763224 32.8282305
3/5/2005 1801 30.070 S FLB 11.3 1365 42 -88.1653623 32.8385951
3/5/2005 1803 30.921 S FLB 11.5 5490 32 -88.1613999 32.8303481
3/5/2005 1807 30.130 S FLB 11.3 2425 97 -88.1761993 32.8383700
3/5/2005 1826 30.752 D NC 11.3 10910 22 -88.1222253 32.8185232
3/9/2005 1251 30.150 S FLB 12.0 6290 22 -88.1551651 32.8255120
3/9/2005 1302 30.110 S FLB 12.0 5645 66 -88.1603954 32.8290891
3/9/2005 1309 30.030 S FLB 12.0 5360 37 -88.1629269 32.8305481
3/9/2005 1313 30.090 S FLB 12.0 5410 62 -88.1623691 32.8303305
3/9/2005 1345 30.130 D NOX 12.4 3835 243 -88.1794619 32.8283989
3/9/2005 1356 30.712 D FLB 12.0 3330 40 -88.1809911 32.8330294
3/9/2005 1407 30.921 S FLB 12.0 2570 116 -88.1778604 32.8384859
3/9/2005 1409 30.190 S FLB 12.0 2570 124 -88.1778399 32.8385620
3/9/2005 1414 30.070 S FLB 12.0 2450 111 -88.1764540 32.8384863
3/9/2005 1451 30.010 D FLB 12.1 7660 101 -88.1446166 32.8299794
3/9/2005 1809 30.150 S FLB 11.8 6320 59 -88.1551209 32.8249555
3/9/2005 1820 30.030 S FLB 11.8 5425 29 -88.1621857 32.8306158
146
TABLE B1 (continued).
DATE TIME FISH # HAB TEMP DAM BANK LONGITUDE LATITUDE
3/9/2005 1832 30.090 S FLB 11.6 4030 108 -88.1765789 32.8278619
3/9/2005 1852 30.921 S FLB 11.6 2445 99 -88.1763927 32.8383817
3/9/2005 1858 30.070 S FLB 11.6 2290 71 -88.1747573 32.8381747
3/9/2005 1905 30.712 D FLB 11.6 1900 31 -88.1707535 32.8372225
3/9/2005 1945 30.050 D FLB 11.6 3745 100 -88.1791485 32.8295463
3/9/2005 1951 30.130 D NOX 11.7 3835 2581 -88.1913937 32.8148814
3/9/2005 2024 30.010 D FLB 11.6 7560 90 -88.1451279 32.8292409
3/11/2005 1109 30.130 S NC 12.4 12105 92 -88.1151807 32.8097634
3/11/2005 1209 30.190 D NC 12.4 25705 75 -88.1084424 32.7636094
3/11/2005 1234 30.712 D NC 12.4 30760 42 -88.0841802 32.7254751
3/11/2005 1249 31.044 D NC 12.4 33730 72 -88.0950283 32.7043751
3/11/2005 1408 30.682 D NC 12.4 53105 66 -88.0795761 32.6360694
3/11/2005 1441 30.691 S NC 12.4 61865 118 -88.0228624 32.5992776
3/11/2005 1456 30.050 S NC 12.4 63820 58 -88.0026936 32.6031699
3/11/2005 1553 30.712 S TWB 12.7 80830 44 -87.8477833 32.6118041
3/11/2005 1629 31.044 S TWB 12.7 80795 85 -87.8483244 32.6115142
3/11/2005 1640 30.682 S TWB 12.7 81555 51 -87.8418882 32.6081105
3/11/2005 1655 30.691 D TWB 12.3 84310 45 -87.8555428 32.5897230
3/11/2005 1703 30.211 D TWB 12.3 85440 31 -87.8638455 32.5957629
3/11/2005 1711 30.752 S TWB 12.3 86715 47 -87.8621086 32.6068627
3/17/2005 1341 30.090 S FLB 12.8 2445 107 -88.1763855 32.8384552
3/17/2005 1342 30.070 S FLB 12.8 2445 110 -88.1764067 32.8384764
3/17/2005 1349 30.921 S FLB 12.8 2640 114 -88.1786490 32.8383175
3/17/2005 1426 30.110 S FLB 12.7 4170 92 -88.1750769 32.8275228
3/17/2005 1441 30.190 S FLB 12.7 5365 36 -88.1628740 32.8305637
3/17/2005 1446 30.030 S FLB 12.7 5450 79 -88.1619771 32.8301027
3/17/2005 1450 30.050 D FLB 12.7 5370 75 -88.1628030 32.8302159
3/17/2005 1751 30.070 S FLB 12.8 2450 96 -88.1764481 32.8383567
3/17/2005 1758 30.090 S FLB 12.8 2695 135 -88.1793669 32.8382862
3/17/2005 1818 30.921 S FLB 12.8 2690 114 -88.1792191 32.8381298
3/17/2005 1838 30.030 S FLB 12.8 5420 39 -88.1622334 32.8305279
3/17/2005 1840 30.110 S FLB 12.8 5370 22 -88.1628255 32.8306924
3/17/2005 1844 30.190 S FLB 12.8 5420 48 -88.1622733 32.8304538
3/17/2005 1848 30.050 D FLB 12.8 5515 89 -88.1614323 32.8297849
3/18/2005 1236 30.150 S NC 12.8 26195 35 -88.1063831 32.7594396
3/18/2005 1312 30.010 D NC 12.8 32955 45 -88.0875838 32.7073826
3/18/2005 1324 31.044 D NC 12.8 35445 140 -88.1128221 32.7024121
3/18/2005 1346 30.691 S NC 12.8 37770 30 -88.1034603 32.6880667
3/18/2005 1452 30.682 D NC 13.6 60380 68 -88.0386566 32.5985140
3/18/2005 1500 30.110 D NOX 11.5 3835 73729 -88.7767708 33.2721144
3/18/2005 1559 30.752 D TWB 13.7 77940 38 -87.8728887 32.6220847
3/18/2005 1609 30.752 S TWB 13.7 78745 107 -87.8643878 32.6208903
3/18/2005 1623 30.691 D TWB 13.7 79215 67 -87.8594293 32.6211374
3/18/2005 1630 30.050 S TWB 13.7 79800 45 -87.8550098 32.6181125
147
TABLE B1 (continued).
DATE TIME FISH # HAB TEMP DAM BANK LONGITUDE LATITUDE
3/18/2005 1632 30.190 D TWB 13.7 79810 56 -87.8550612 32.6179640
3/18/2005 1639 30.130 S TWB 14.0 80730 79 -87.8489670 32.6117382
3/18/2005 1647 30.682 S TWB 14.0 81335 64 -87.8431470 32.6097220
3/18/2005 1650 30.712 D TWB 14.0 81515 32 -87.8419120 32.6085285
3/18/2005 1700 31.044 S TWB 14.0 83265 66 -87.8513617 32.5983771
3/18/2005 1708 30.712 S TWB 14.0 85005 34 -87.8613575 32.5924348
3/18/2005 1729 30.211 D TWB 14.0 88260 78 -87.8777179 32.6099310
3/24/2005 1200 30.921 S FLB 14.3 6415 34 -88.1541289 32.8247134
3/24/2005 1215 30.030 S FLB 14.3 5355 28 -88.1630028 32.8306269
3/24/2005 1227 30.050 D FLB 14.3 4380 24 -88.1727873 32.8279048
3/24/2005 1240 30.070 S FLB 14.5 2710 125 -88.1794819 32.8381675
3/24/2005 1243 30.090 S FLB 14.5 2685 126 -88.1792047 32.8382453
3/24/2005 1713 30.090 S FLB 14.5 2710 121 -88.1794327 32.8381393
3/24/2005 1714 30.070 S FLB 14.5 2740 108 -88.1796949 32.8379421
3/24/2005 1723 30.921 S FLB 14.4 4315 63 -88.1734697 32.8276046
3/24/2005 1737 30.030 S FLB 14.4 5395 41 -88.1625309 32.8305260
3/25/2005 1011 30.211 D TWB 14.7 85650 34 -87.8644835 32.5976670
3/25/2005 1038 30.691 D TWB 14.7 81315 54 -87.8432013 32.6099431
3/25/2005 1051 30.752 S TWB 15.2 79160 26 -87.8599888 32.6215724
3/25/2005 1054 30.712 S TWB 15.2 79025 33 -87.8614340 32.6215543
3/25/2005 1215 30.050 S NC 15.4 51295 70 -88.0642221 32.6409379
3/25/2005 1255 31.044 S NC 15.4 37260 32 -88.1081581 32.6901782
3/25/2005 1315 30.682 S NC 15.4 30870 37 -88.0834528 32.7246258
3/25/2005 1325 31.044 D NC 15.4 28740 72 -88.0997866 32.7378855
3/25/2005 1340 30.130 S NC 15.4 20125 131 -88.0720826 32.7817632
3/25/2005 1403 30.752 D NC 15.4 18870 56 -88.0643027 32.7905988
3/25/2005 1601 30.752 D NC 15.4 22135 98 -88.0863449 32.7770064
3/25/2005 1605 30.682 D NC 15.4 22040 53 -88.0858105 32.7761830
3/25/2005 1611 30.712 D NC 15.4 23380 66 -88.0990449 32.7802576
3/25/2005 1618 30.130 S NC 15.4 23930 107 -88.1044361 32.7783854
3/25/2005 1635 31.044 D NC 15.4 29835 111 -88.0907687 32.7316134
3/25/2005 1647 31.044 S NC 15.4 33100 51 -88.0890280 32.7068756
3/25/2005 1707 30.050 S NC 15.4 42570 113 -88.0565429 32.6935160
3/25/2005 1825 30.712 S TWB 15.2 78960 37 -87.8621061 32.6215154
3/25/2005 1828 30.752 S TWB 15.2 79135 50 -87.8602852 32.6213712
3/25/2005 1834 30.691 D TWB 15.2 80635 40 -87.8497427 32.6123837
3/30/2005 1056 30.921 S FLB 17.6 8675 74 -88.1361722 32.8339947
3/30/2005 1105 30.691 S FLB 17.6 8770 54 -88.1351986 32.8337129
3/30/2005 1126 30.090 S FLB 17.4 5425 28 -88.1621387 32.8306186
3/30/2005 1130 30.030 S FLB 17.4 5390 36 -88.1626079 32.8305752
3/30/2005 1133 30.070 S FLB 17.4 5395 46 -88.1625371 32.8304785
3/30/2005 1136 30.130 D FLB 17.4 5325 24 -88.1633906 32.8305224
3/30/2005 1159 30.050 D FLB 17.4 5095 17 -88.1656821 32.8295422
3/30/2005 1209 30.110 S FLB 17.5 3850 137 -88.1783140 32.8286909
148
TABLE B1 (continued).
DATE TIME FISH # HAB TEMP DAM BANK LONGITUDE LATITUDE
3/30/2005 1219 30.010 D FLB 17.5 3575 43 -88.1798647 32.8310191
3/30/2005 1229 30.130 S FLB 17.4 2305 72 -88.1749045 32.8381833
3/30/2005 1607 30.010 D NOX 17.8 3835 348 -88.1808306 32.8278109
3/30/2005 1752 30.921 S FLB 17.5 7595 52 -88.1453432 32.8296209
3/30/2005 1759 30.030 S FLB 17.5 5470 57 -88.1616826 32.8302095
3/30/2005 1803 30.090 S FLB 17.5 5435 23 -88.1619400 32.8306251
3/30/2005 1811 30.050 D FLB 17.5 5215 27 -88.1644896 32.8300670
3/30/2005 1822 30.110 S FLB 17.4 3800 76 -88.1783960 32.8294539
3/30/2005 1831 30.070 S FLB 17.4 2745 110 -88.1797813 32.8379279
3/30/2005 1835 30.130 S FLB 17.4 2535 92 -88.1774365 32.8383113
3/30/2005 1919 30.010 D NOX 17.8 3835 408 -88.1815263 32.8275589
3/30/2005 1933 30.130 D NOX 17.8 3835 207 -88.1790828 32.8284721
3/30/2005 1950 30.691 S FLB 17.8 8145 38 -88.1414654 32.8332264
4/2/2005 1249 30.211 D TWB 18.7 85145 62 -87.8618771 32.5936427
4/2/2005 1348 30.712 S TWB 18.7 79070 10 -87.8609184 32.6217518
4/2/2005 1400 30.691 D TWB 18.7 81420 70 -87.8427726 32.6090955
4/2/2005 1516 30.190 S FLB 18.2 7580 57 -88.1453556 32.8295098
4/2/2005 1533 30.130 S FLB 18.0 3685 74 -88.1794851 32.8300365
4/2/2005 1600 30.752 S FLB 17.9 7860 59 -88.1437201 32.8315975
4/2/2005 1621 30.050 S NC 18.0 16345 59 -88.0808023 32.8039523
4/2/2005 1745 30.752 D NC 17.9 17640 55 -88.0698893 32.8005680
4/6/2005 952 30.752 S FLB 18.0 5405 50 -88.1624342 32.8304382
4/6/2005 954 30.030 S FLB 18.0 5400 59 -88.1624977 32.8303603
4/6/2005 958 30.090 S FLB 18.0 5430 38 -88.1620693 32.8305160
4/6/2005 1000 30.150 S FLB 18.0 5375 55 -88.1627766 32.8303938
4/6/2005 1001 30.070 S FLB 18.0 5410 53 -88.1623662 32.8304109
4/6/2005 1037 30.190 S FLB 18.0 2275 56 -88.1745872 32.8380300
4/6/2005 1041 30.921 S FLB 18.0 2360 70 -88.1755370 32.8381427
4/6/2005 1044 30.130 S FLB 18.0 2315 69 -88.1750420 32.8381654
4/6/2005 1049 30.712 D FLB 18.0 2535 92 -88.1774147 32.8383076
4/8/2005 1139 30.090 S FLB 16.9 5355 28 -88.1630486 32.8306063
4/8/2005 1142 30.150 S FLB 16.9 5365 13 -88.1628881 32.8307654
4/8/2005 1158 30.921 S FLB 16.9 3595 60 -88.1798999 32.8307808
4/8/2005 1215 30.070 S FLB 16.9 975 127 -88.1635979 32.8418660
4/8/2005 1254 30.030 S FLB 16.9 4130 55 -88.1754199 32.8279327
4/8/2005 1309 30.752 S NOX 17.1 3835 3096 -88.1963777 32.8161253
4/8/2005 1322 30.130 S NOX 17.1 3835 4921 -88.1941691 32.8273337
4/8/2005 1348 30.752 D NOX 17.1 3835 13362 -88.2312279 32.8630212
4/8/2005 1542 30.190 S NOX 17.1 3835 6806 -88.2116709 32.8296016
4/8/2005 1549 30.752 S NOX 3835 5307 -88.1979900 32.8286169
4/8/2005 1554 30.130 S NOX 3835 3986 -88.1902623 32.8210967
4/8/2005 1602 30.030 S NOX 3835 650 -88.1832236 32.8266343
4/8/2005 1627 30.050 S NC 17.1 16610 66 -88.0781721 32.8049407
4/8/2005 1815 30.050 S NC 17.1 16615 77 -88.0780971 32.8048675
149
TABLE B1 (continued).
DATE TIME FISH # HAB TEMP DAM BANK LONGITUDE LATITUDE
4/8/2005 1855 30.090 S FLB 16.9 5355 8 -88.1631480 32.8307764
4/8/2005 1903 30.030 S FLB 16.9 4515 1 -88.1713416 32.8281500
4/8/2005 1907 30.150 S FLB 16.9 3940 98 -88.1773450 32.8284643
4/8/2005 1915 30.070 S FLB 16.9 2300 20 -88.1749843 32.8377167
4/8/2005 1934 30.921 S NOX 16.9 3835 966 -88.1837354 32.8240108
4/13/2005 1240 30.190 S FLB 19.4 7980 74 -88.1427613 32.8322525
4/13/2005 1257 30.050 D FLB 19.4 7755 54 -88.1445833 32.8309496
4/13/2005 1319 30.921 S FLB 19.4 4535 36 -88.1710813 32.8278462
4/13/2005 1336 30.090 S FLB 19.4 2540 48 -88.1774381 32.8379163
4/13/2005 1347 30.712 D FLB 19.4 2460 108 -88.1766089 32.8384601
4/13/2005 2012 30.090 S FLB 17.2 2415 112 -88.1760776 32.8385082
4/13/2005 2030 30.921 S FLB 17.2 3365 44 -88.1808988 32.8326940
4/13/2005 2039 30.712 D NOX 17.2 3835 204 -88.1790596 32.8284982
4/13/2005 2058 30.150 S FLB 19.4 7730 132 -88.1440647 32.8303707
4/13/2005 2102 30.190 S FLB 19.4 7720 62 -88.1447518 32.8306398
4/14/2005 1400 30.110 D NOX 3835 73729 -88.7767708 33.2721144
4/15/2005 1350 30.752 S TWB 81195 30 -87.8439139 32.6109725
4/15/2005 1400 30.712 S TWB 79065 35 -87.8610200 32.6215280
4/15/2005 1414 30.682 S TWB 82755 29 -87.8462818 32.5996769
4/15/2005 1420 31.044 S TWB 83420 31 -87.8517496 32.5969483
4/15/2005 1424 30.190 D TWB 83490 14 -87.8518589 32.5963251
4/15/2005 1715 30.050 D NC 16750 89 -88.0766948 32.8050680
4/15/2005 1720 31.044 D NC 15355 70 -88.0899072 32.7993953
4/15/2005 1737 30.752 D NC 9420 20 -88.1296096 32.8304525
4/15/2005 1846 30.070 S NC 23830 123 -88.1037836 32.7791054
4/15/2005 1852 30.130 S NC 24380 121 -88.1075583 32.7752106
4/20/2005 1702 30.190 S FLB 20.7 1210 62 -88.1644717 32.8397491
4/20/2005 1718 30.921 S FLB 20.7 2415 75 -88.1761223 32.8381711
4/20/2005 1721 30.130 S FLB 20.7 2445 113 -88.1763771 32.8385060
4/20/2005 1725 30.150 S FLB 20.7 2655 131 -88.1789398 32.8383837
4/20/2005 1736 30.030 S FLB 20.8 5290 52 -88.1636415 32.8301589
4/20/2005 1740 30.090 S FLB 20.8 5545 49 -88.1609449 32.8299277
4/20/2005 1835 30.110 S FLB 20.4 8195 59 -88.1408401 32.8332357
4/20/2005 2027 30.090 S FLB 20.1 6225 13 -88.1558160 32.8256566
4/20/2005 2034 30.030 S FLB 20.1 5540 21 -88.1608074 32.8301829
4/20/2005 2054 30.150 S FLB 20.2 1915 12 -88.1709113 32.8370395
4/20/2005 2101 30.190 S FLB 20.2 1410 20 -88.1655727 32.8381575
4/20/2005 2105 30.921 S FLB 20.2 1325 37 -88.1650542 32.8388035
4/20/2005 2113 30.130 S FLB 20.2 475 58 -88.1595168 32.8448427
4/20/2005 2140 30.130 D FLB 19.1 3855 162 -88.1784213 32.8284704
4/22/2005 1418 30.752 D TWB 24.3 77260 -269 -87.8813275 32.6245928
4/22/2005 1430 30.752 S TWB 21.3 77995 39 -87.8723394 32.6220089
4/22/2005 1649 30.190 D TWB 23.0 83145 54 -87.8504116 32.5990707
4/22/2005 1652 30.682 D TWB 23.0 83090 28 -87.8498289 32.5990955
150
TABLE B1 (continued).
DATE TIME FISH # HAB TEMP DAM BANK LONGITUDE LATITUDE
4/22/2005 1705 31.044 D TWB 22.5 81460 45 -87.8423343 32.6089038
4/22/2005 1727 30.712 D TWB 22.5 80770 36 -87.8483941 32.6119781
4/22/2005 1730 30.010 D TWB 22.5 80545 83 -87.8507809 32.6123738
4/22/2005 1740 30.712 S TWB 22.5 78500 54 -87.8670019 32.6212753
4/22/2005 1753 30.682 S TWB 22.5 80885 84 -87.8473664 32.6113611
4/22/2005 2124 30.130 D TWB 20.6 87825 102 -87.8730703 32.6100280
4/22/2005 2132 30.211 D TWB 20.6 88510 33 -87.8803941 32.6095445
4/25/2005 1409 30.921 S FLB 20.6 2475 99 -88.1767504 32.8383787
4/25/2005 1415 30.030 S FLB 20.6 1280 55 -88.1648642 32.8392316
4/25/2005 1423 30.190 S FLB 20.6 205 50 -88.1578043 32.8468294
4/25/2005 1426 30.130 S FLB 20.6 270 32 -88.1580838 32.8462994
4/25/2005 1428 30.090 S FLB 20.6 275 39 -88.1581826 32.8462973
4/25/2005 1430 30.150 S FLB 20.6 135 67 -88.1574834 32.8473681
4/25/2005 2055 30.130 S FLB 20.6 965 48 -88.1628391 32.8414794
4/25/2005 2100 30.190 S FLB 20.6 885 72 -88.1624152 32.8421731
4/25/2005 2106 30.921 S FLB 20.6 250 61 -88.1582164 32.8465726
4/25/2005 2110 30.030 S FLB 20.6 155 59 -88.1575317 32.8472176
4/25/2005 2112 30.090 S FLB 20.6 125 127 -88.1579205 32.8477724
4/25/2005 2114 30.150 S FLB 20.6 75 81 -88.1572514 32.8479308
5/6/2005 1051 30.030 S FLB 20.5 5520 50 -88.1611526 32.8300552
5/6/2005 1107 30.070 S FLB 21.5 2485 92 -88.1768532 32.8383111
5/6/2005 1110 30.130 S FLB 21.5 2490 58 -88.1769089 32.8380000
5/6/2005 1114 30.921 S FLB 21.5 2225 45 -88.1741231 32.8377549
5/6/2005 1126 30.190 S FLB 21.5 1095 115 -88.1642706 32.8409342
5/6/2005 1134 30.150 S FLB 21.5 115 71 -88.1573501 32.8475634
5/6/2005 1850 30.190 S FLB 20.3 260 83 -88.1584802 32.8466184
5/6/2005 1854 30.130 S FLB 20.3 130 68 -88.1574420 32.8474308
5/6/2005 1856 30.150 S FLB 20.3 130 104 -88.1577377 32.8476340
5/6/2005 1912 30.070 S FLB 20.3 2925 79 -88.1812527 32.8366324
5/6/2005 1938 30.921 S FLB 20.5 5355 39 -88.1629919 32.8305260
5/6/2005 1942 30.030 S FLB 20.5 5530 109 -88.1614383 32.8295691
5/10/2005 1219 30.682 D TWB 27.0 83370 28 -87.8515171 32.5973381
5/10/2005 1229 30.712 D TWB 24.5 84620 72 -87.8586282 32.5899410
5/10/2005 1243 31.044 S TWB 26.5 86815 83 -87.8626136 32.6077114
5/10/2005 1301 30.130 D TWB 24.8 88525 104 -87.8805358 32.6102088
5/10/2005 1342 30.712 S TWB 23.9 77835 31 -87.8740415 32.6222570
5/26/2005 1010 30.110 D NOX 3835 73729 -88.7767708 33.2721144
5/26/2005 1347 30.090 S FLB 27.6 70 10 -88.1565714 32.8476497
5/26/2005 1356 30.150 S FLB 27.6 155 44 -88.1573996 32.8471322
5/26/2005 1449 30.070 S FLB 27.6 1970 45 -88.1714958 32.8373198
5/26/2005 1452 30.921 S FLB 27.6 2320 26 -88.1751816 32.8377682
5/26/2005 1456 30.190 S FLB 27.6 2895 64 -88.1808684 32.8367960
5/26/2005 1557 30.030 S FLB 30.2 5435 47 -88.1620433 32.8304222
5/26/2005 1948 30.050 S NC 28.6 16770 84 -88.0764810 32.8051557
151
TABLE B1 (continued).
DATE TIME FISH # HAB TEMP DAM BANK LONGITUDE LATITUDE
5/26/2005 2054 30.030 S FLB 27.7 5680 22 -88.1597559 32.8291130
5/26/2005 2057 30.921 S FLB 27.7 5260 58 -88.1639522 32.8300083
5/26/2005 2110 30.070 S FLB 27.0 2335 61 -88.1752415 32.8380774
5/26/2005 2123 30.190 S FLB 27.0 105 38 -88.1570151 32.8474346
5/26/2005 2125 30.090 S FLB 27.0 35 18 -88.1565084 32.8480117
5/26/2005 2126 30.150 S FLB 27.0 20 8 -88.1563563 32.8481096
5/28/2005 1326 30.712 S TWB 29.6 77330 48 -87.8794261 32.6221155
5/28/2005 1419 30.682 D TWB 29.6 83310 42 -87.8513782 32.5979192
5/28/2005 1605 31.044 S TWB 28.3 77565 25 -87.8769256 32.6225500
5/28/2005 1615 30.712 D TWB 28.3 79270 35 -87.8587841 32.6213385
5/28/2005 1624 30.691 S TWB 28.3 81005 94 -87.8461182 32.6110391
5/28/2005 1634 31.044 D TWB 30.3 83380 74 -87.8519937 32.5974528
5/28/2005 1652 30.691 D TWB 30.3 86810 58 -87.8627316 32.6075141
5/28/2005 1934 30.691 D TWB 29.3 87340 30 -87.8680275 32.6089818
5/28/2005 1952 30.682 D TWB 30.2 83655 61 -87.8529383 32.5950562
5/28/2005 2000 31.044 D TWB 30.2 83205 70 -87.8510136 32.5987936
5/28/2005 2005 30.691 S TWB 29.2 82370 55 -87.8428693 32.6017510
5/28/2005 2007 30.712 D TWB 29.2 81965 79 -87.8407895 32.6047109
5/28/2005 2019 30.752 S TWB 29.2 79255 63 -87.8590228 32.6211254
5/28/2005 2025 30.712 S TWB 29.2 77755 42 -87.8748853 32.6222419
6/25/2005 1900 30.921 S FLB 28.4 160 107 -88.1579862 32.8474307
6/25/2005 1904 30.150 S FLB 28.4 140 94 -88.1577241 32.8475111
6/25/2005 1914 30.190 S FLB 28.4 970 35 -88.1627703 32.8413847
6/25/2005 1918 30.090 S FLB 28.4 1160 80 -88.1643297 32.8402477
6/25/2005 2008 30.070 S FLB 28.9 5375 53 -88.1627693 32.8304154
6/25/2005 2016 30.030 S FLB 28.9 5225 77 -88.1642137 32.8296890
152
APPENDIX C
PADDLEFISH CAPTURED WITH GILL NETS
IN THE TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE
WATERWAY
153
TABLE C1.—Paddlefish caught in the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway and a
tributary using gill nets. “HAB” indicates habitat type; “FLB”= flowing bendway;
“NOX”= Oktoc Creek in the Noxubee River sytem; “TWB”= Twelvemile Bend.
“MESH” indicates bar measurement of mesh size in mm. “TYPE” indicates mesh type;
“mono”= monofilament; “multi”= multifilament. Age is given in years; asterisks denote
ages estimated with von Bertalanffy growth curve; ages without asterisks were
determined from pectoral fin rays. “EFL” indicates eye-to-fork length in mm. Weight is
given in kg.
DATE LAKE HABITAT MESH TYPE AGE EFL WEIGHT SEX
3/17/2003 NOX 127 mono 900 9.7 m
3/17/2003 NOX 127 mono 970 14.1 m
4/15/2003 Demopolis FLB 127 mono 745 6.7
4/15/2003 Demopolis FLB 127 mono 800 7.7
4/22/2003 Demopolis FLB 127 mono 730 m
4/22/2003 Demopolis FLB 127 multi 780 7.9 m
4/22/2003 Demopolis FLB 127 multi 803 6.8 m
4/22/2003 Demopolis FLB 127 multi 820 10.2 m
6/30/2003 Demopolis FLB 127 multi 840 8.9
8/10/2003 Gainesville 152 multi 834 11.3
8/23/2003 Demopolis FLB 102 multi 789 7.5
8/23/2003 Demopolis FLB 102 multi 830 9.0
8/23/2003 Demopolis FLB 152 multi 860 9.6
8/23/2003 Demopolis FLB 152 multi 870 9.3
8/23/2003 Demopolis FLB 152 multi 875 10.8
8/23/2003 Demopolis FLB 102 multi 875 9.8
8/23/2003 Demopolis FLB 127 multi 936 13.3 f
10/14/2003 Gainesville 102 multi 470 1.5
10/17/2003 Demopolis FLB 152 multi 863 9.8
10/17/2003 Demopolis FLB 102 multi 900 11.1
10/17/2003 Demopolis FLB 152 multi 908 12.6
10/17/2003 Demopolis FLB 152 multi 914 11.8
10/17/2003 Demopolis FLB 102 multi 940 13.4
10/17/2003 Demopolis FLB 127 multi 993 16.0
10/18/2003 Demopolis FLB 102 multi 722 5.4
10/18/2003 Demopolis FLB 127 multi 842 9.8
11/9/2003 Gainesville 152 multi 594 3.7
12/17/2003 Demopolis FLB 127 multi 800 8.6 m
12/17/2003 Demopolis FLB 127 multi 806 7.7
12/17/2003 Demopolis FLB 127 multi 845 9.3 m
12/17/2003 Demopolis FLB 127 multi 853 11.3 f
12/17/2003 Demopolis FLB 152 multi 918 13.0 m
12/17/2003 Demopolis FLB 152 multi 927 15.0 m
12/19/2003 Demopolis FLB 152 multi 856 8.7
1/11/2004 Demopolis FLB 127 multi 827 7.8 m
1/11/2004 Demopolis FLB 127 multi 833 8.0 m
154
TABLE C1 (continued).
DATE LAKE HABITAT MESH TYPE AGE EFL WEIGHT SEX
1/11/2004 Demopolis FLB 152 multi 845 9.2 m
1/11/2004 Demopolis FLB 152 multi 870 9.5 m
1/11/2004 Demopolis FLB 127 multi 915 12.1 f
1/11/2004 Demopolis FLB 127 multi 948 14.3 f
1/11/2004 Demopolis FLB 152 multi 982 14.0 m
2/27/2004 Demopolis FLB 102 multi 632 3.4
2/27/2004 Demopolis FLB 102 multi 823 7.0
2/27/2004 Demopolis FLB 102 multi 840 8.2 m
2/27/2004 Demopolis FLB 102 multi 842 9.0 f
2/27/2004 Demopolis FLB 102 multi 860 9.0 m
2/27/2004 Demopolis FLB 102 multi 861 8.6 m
2/27/2004 Demopolis FLB 102 multi 877 8.6 m
2/27/2004 Demopolis FLB 102 multi 881 9.6 m
2/27/2004 Demopolis FLB 102 multi 986 12.0 f
3/5/2004 Demopolis FLB 127 mono 647 4.1
3/5/2004 Demopolis FLB 102 multi 820 7.3 m
3/5/2004 Demopolis FLB 152 multi 871 9.4 f
3/12/2004 Demopolis FLB 102 multi 789 6.6 m
3/12/2004 Demopolis FLB 152 multi 860 10.5 f
3/12/2004 Demopolis FLB 127 mono 890 8.8 m
3/12/2004 Demopolis FLB 102 multi 905 9.5 m
3/16/2004 Demopolis FLB 102 multi 690
3/16/2004 Demopolis FLB 102 multi 742 6.6 m
3/16/2004 Demopolis FLB 102 multi 771 5.5 m
3/16/2004 Demopolis FLB 102 multi 793 7.1 m
3/16/2004 Demopolis FLB 102 multi 803 7.9 m
3/16/2004 Demopolis FLB 102 multi 828 8.3 m
3/16/2004 Demopolis FLB 127 mono 830 7.9 m
3/16/2004 Demopolis FLB 102 multi 852 8.9 m
3/16/2004 Demopolis FLB 127 mono 860 8.3 m
3/16/2004 Demopolis FLB 102 multi 913 11.6 m
3/16/2004 Demopolis FLB 127 mono 923 11.6 f
3/16/2004 Demopolis FLB 102 multi 942 13.2 f
3/16/2004 Demopolis FLB 102 multi 970 16.3 f
3/31/2004 NOX 127 multi 881 12.4 m
4/2/2004 Demopolis FLB 152 multi 892 15.6 f
4/9/2004 Demopolis FLB 152 multi 601 2.9
4/9/2004 Demopolis FLB 152 multi 720 5.6
4/9/2004 Demopolis FLB 152 multi 835 8.6 m
4/9/2004 Demopolis FLB 127 mono 864 10.3
4/9/2004 Demopolis FLB 152 multi 872 11.2 f
4/9/2004 Demopolis FLB 152 multi 914 10.8 m
4/16/2004 Demopolis FLB 152 multi 912 9.9 m
4/16/2004 Demopolis FLB 127 multi 1035 16.6 f
155
TABLE C1 (continued).
DATE LAKE HABITAT MESH TYPE AGE EFL WEIGHT SEX
4/23/2004 Demopolis FLB 152 multi 790 6.9 m
4/23/2004 Demopolis FLB 152 multi 817 7.7 m
4/23/2004 Demopolis FLB 152 multi 818 7.5 m
4/23/2004 Demopolis FLB 152 multi 855 8.3 m
4/23/2004 Demopolis FLB 152 multi 859 7.9 m
4/23/2004 Demopolis FLB 152 multi 912 10.5 m
4/23/2004 Demopolis FLB 152 multi 916 9.8 m
4/23/2004 Demopolis FLB 152 multi 926 12.3 m
4/23/2004 Demopolis FLB 152 multi 936 12.1 m
4/23/2004 Demopolis FLB 152 multi 990 15.6 f
12/31/2004 Demopolis FLB 152 multi 830 7.5 f
12/31/2004 Demopolis FLB 127 multi 6* 839 7.7 m
12/31/2004 Demopolis FLB 127 multi 6* 845 9.2 m
12/31/2004 Demopolis FLB 152 multi 6* 849 8.9 m
12/31/2004 Demopolis FLB 127 multi 873 10.0 f
12/31/2004 Demopolis FLB 152 multi 7* 876 11.1 m
12/31/2004 Demopolis FLB 152 multi 7* 879 9.3 m
12/31/2004 Demopolis FLB 152 multi 7* 884 10.1 m
12/31/2004 Demopolis FLB 127 multi 8* 909 12.0 m
12/31/2004 Demopolis FLB 152 multi 937 13.5 f
12/31/2004 Demopolis FLB 152 multi 12* 979 11.6 m
12/31/2004 Demopolis FLB 152 multi 986 14.2 f
1/3/2005 Demopolis TWB 102 multi 4* 740 5.0 m
1/3/2005 Demopolis TWB 102 multi 4* 778 6.7 m
1/3/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 multi 5* 792 7.0 m
1/3/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 multi 7 821 8.0 m
1/3/2005 Demopolis TWB 102 multi 6* 855 7.5 m
1/3/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 multi 876 9.9 f
1/3/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 multi 895 10.9 f
1/3/2005 Demopolis TWB 102 multi 895 10.2 f
1/3/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 multi 897 10.2 f
1/3/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 multi 953 12.0 f
1/5/2005 Demopolis TWB 152 multi 5* 812 7.9 m
1/5/2005 Demopolis TWB 152 multi 820 7.9 f
1/5/2005 Demopolis TWB 152 multi 6* 840 8.5 m
1/5/2005 Demopolis TWB 102 multi 6* 853 8.0 m
1/5/2005 Demopolis TWB 152 multi 6* 857 8.8 m
1/5/2005 Demopolis TWB 102 multi 880 10.4 f
1/5/2005 Demopolis TWB 102 multi 880 10.0 f
1/5/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 multi 890 10.3 f
1/5/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 multi 900 10.7 f
1/5/2005 Demopolis TWB 152 multi 8* 902 11.0 m
1/5/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 multi 909 10.8 f
1/5/2005 Demopolis TWB 102 multi 909 12.0 f
156
TABLE C1 (continued).
DATE LAKE HABITAT MESH TYPE AGE EFL WEIGHT SEX
1/5/2005 Demopolis TWB 102 multi 916 11.7 f
1/5/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 multi 970 13.4 f
1/5/2005 Demopolis TWB 102 multi 12* 979 13.5 m
1/5/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 multi 1074 20.5 f
1/18/2005 Demopolis FLB 127 mono 4* 740 4.9 m
1/18/2005 Demopolis FLB 127 mono 5* 794 7.0 m
1/18/2005 Demopolis FLB 102 mono 6* 829 7.8 m
1/18/2005 Demopolis FLB 102 mono 6* 847 8.4 m
1/18/2005 Demopolis FLB 102 mono 885 9.3 f
1/18/2005 Demopolis FLB 152 mono 890 10.2 f
1/18/2005 Demopolis FLB 102 mono 8* 892 10.0 m
1/18/2005 Demopolis FLB 152 multi 911 9.4 f
1/18/2005 Demopolis FLB 102 mono 9* 914 11.6 m
1/18/2005 Demopolis FLB 102 mono 930 11.8 f
1/18/2005 Demopolis FLB 152 mono 10* 934 10.6 m
1/18/2005 Demopolis FLB 127 mono 10* 935 12.7 m
1/18/2005 Demopolis FLB 127 mono 960 14.1 f
1/18/2005 Demopolis FLB 127 mono 970 14.5 f
1/18/2005 Demopolis FLB 127 mono 12* 972 16.0 m
1/18/2005 Demopolis FLB 152 mono 973 12.8 f
1/22/2005 Demopolis TWB 102 multi 720 5.4
1/22/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 multi 5* 788 7.0 m
1/22/2005 Demopolis TWB 152 multi 6 816 7.6 m
1/22/2005 Demopolis TWB 152 multi 826 8.7 f
1/22/2005 Demopolis TWB 152 multi 6* 842 8.1 m
1/22/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 multi 6* 850 8.7 m
1/22/2005 Demopolis TWB 152 multi 7 851 9.1 m
1/22/2005 Demopolis TWB 102 multi 855 8.4 f
1/22/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 multi 866 9.9 f
1/22/2005 Demopolis TWB 152 multi 7* 867 8.7 m
1/22/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 multi 8* 901 10.7 m
1/22/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 multi 901 10.9 f
1/22/2005 Demopolis TWB 152 mono 8* 907 9.0 m
1/22/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 multi 8* 908 11.2 m
1/22/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 multi 911 11.8 f
1/22/2005 Demopolis TWB 152 mono 9* 916 10.9 m
1/22/2005 Demopolis TWB 152 multi 934 13.2 f
1/22/2005 Demopolis TWB 102 multi 940 13.8 f
1/22/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 multi 948 13.6 f
1/22/2005 Demopolis TWB 102 multi 990 14.0 f
1/22/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 multi 1095 23.0 f
1/24/2005 Demopolis FLB 152 mono 767 6.1 f
1/24/2005 Demopolis FLB 102 mono 4* 769 5.9 m
1/24/2005 Demopolis FLB 127 mono 5 792 7.3 m
157
TABLE C1 (continued).
DATE LAKE HABITAT MESH TYPE AGE EFL WEIGHT SEX
1/24/2005 Demopolis FLB 102 mono 6 831 8.4 m
1/24/2005 Demopolis FLB 127 mono 6* 842 8.5 m
1/24/2005 Demopolis FLB 102 mono 6* 852 8.5 m
1/24/2005 Demopolis FLB 127 mono 8 854 8.5 m
1/24/2005 Demopolis FLB 127 mono 6* 862 8.5 m
1/24/2005 Demopolis FLB 152 mono 6* 862 8.2 m
1/24/2005 Demopolis FLB 127 mono 876 8.2 f
1/24/2005 Demopolis FLB 127 multi 7* 883 8.7 m
1/24/2005 Demopolis FLB 102 mono 9 885 9.3 m
1/24/2005 Demopolis FLB 152 mono 888 10.7 f
1/24/2005 Demopolis FLB 127 multi 7* 891 9.8 m
1/24/2005 Demopolis FLB 127 mono 8* 894 9.8 m
1/24/2005 Demopolis FLB 152 mono 8* 900 10.0 m
1/24/2005 Demopolis FLB 127 multi 901 10.2 f
1/24/2005 Demopolis FLB 127 multi 8* 910 10.4 m
1/24/2005 Demopolis FLB 127 mono 11 920 11.2 m
1/24/2005 Demopolis FLB 127 mono 10* 932 10.6 m
1/24/2005 Demopolis FLB 127 multi 940 11.2 f
1/24/2005 Demopolis FLB 152 mono 1052 19.4 f
2/2/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 mono 661 4.0
2/2/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 mono 4* 761 6.2 m
2/2/2005 Demopolis TWB 152 mono 809 7.7 f
2/2/2005 Demopolis TWB 102 mono 5* 810 6.7 m
2/2/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 mono 6* 834 7.5 m
2/2/2005 Demopolis TWB 152 mono 6* 841 8.6 m
2/2/2005 Demopolis TWB 152 mono 7 851 9.6 m
2/2/2005 Demopolis TWB 152 mono 865 10.8 f
2/2/2005 Demopolis TWB 152 mono 7* 888 10.9 m
2/2/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 mono 908 11.0 f
2/2/2005 Demopolis TWB 102 mono 920 11.4 f
2/2/2005 Demopolis TWB 102 mono 951 11.6 f
2/28/2005 Demopolis FLB 102 mono 6 798 6.8 m
2/28/2005 Demopolis FLB 102 mono 841 8.3 f
2/28/2005 Demopolis FLB 127 mono 7* 874 9.4 m
2/28/2005 Demopolis FLB 102 mono 920 11.0 f
2/28/2005 Demopolis FLB 102 mono 927 12.7 f
2/28/2005 Demopolis FLB 127 mono 952 13.2 f
3/7/2005 Demopolis TWB 152 multi 918 12.0 f
3/9/2005 Demopolis FLB 127 multi 7* 876 9.0 m
3/9/2005 Demopolis FLB 127 multi 938 13.2 f
3/13/2005 Demopolis FLB 127 mono 4* 776 6.2 m
3/13/2005 Demopolis FLB 127 mono 5* 780 5.8 m
3/13/2005 Demopolis FLB 152 multi 5* 781 6.8 m
3/13/2005 Demopolis FLB 102 mono 4 792 6.4 m
158
TABLE C1 (continued).
DATE LAKE HABITAT MESH TYPE AGE EFL WEIGHT SEX
3/13/2005 Demopolis FLB 127 mono 5* 819 7.0 m
3/13/2005 Demopolis FLB 152 multi 5* 820 8.0 m
3/13/2005 Demopolis FLB 152 multi 6* 830 7.1 m
3/13/2005 Demopolis FLB 102 mono 7 840 8.0 m
3/13/2005 Demopolis FLB 127 mono 7 843 9.2 m
3/13/2005 Demopolis FLB 152 multi 6* 859 8.0 m
3/13/2005 Demopolis FLB 102 mono 7* 868 8.6 m
3/13/2005 Demopolis FLB 127 mono 8 878 8.6 m
3/13/2005 Demopolis FLB 102 mono 880 11.4 f
3/13/2005 Demopolis FLB 102 multi 10 884 8.8 m
3/13/2005 Demopolis FLB 127 mono 7 885 10.2 m
3/13/2005 Demopolis FLB 102 multi 8 885 9.5 m
3/13/2005 Demopolis FLB 127 multi 7* 888 8.7 m
3/13/2005 Demopolis FLB 152 multi 10* 929 10.2 m
3/13/2005 Demopolis FLB 127 mono 12* 955 11.4 m
3/13/2005 Demopolis FLB 152 multi 9 991 12.8 m
3/13/2005 Demopolis FLB 127 mono 12* 998 13.4 m
3/13/2005 Demopolis FLB 127 mono 1048 20.1 f
3/21/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 mono 654 3.2
3/21/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 mono 804 7.7 f
3/21/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 mono 5* 806 7.2 m
3/21/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 mono 5* 811 7.3 m
3/21/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 mono 816 7.6 f
3/21/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 multi 5 817 7.7 m
3/21/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 mono 820 7.9 f
3/21/2005 Demopolis TWB 152 multi 822 8.2 f
3/21/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 multi 823 8.8 f
3/21/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 mono 835 8.8 f
3/21/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 mono 6* 846 7.4 m
3/21/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 mono 7* 849 7.6 m
3/21/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 mono 851 9.4 f
3/21/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 mono 858 10.1 f
3/21/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 mono 860 10.2 f
3/21/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 mono 6* 861 7.9 m
3/21/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 multi 861 9.9 f
3/21/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 mono 7* 864 8.3 m
3/21/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 multi 7* 872 9.0 m
3/21/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 mono 8 882 9.6 m
3/21/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 mono 8 897 9.7 m
3/21/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 mono 898 11.1 f
3/21/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 mono 10 912 10.0 m
3/21/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 mono 912 10.7 f
3/21/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 mono 915 11.8 f
3/21/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 mono 932 10.8 f
159
TABLE C1 (continued).
DATE LAKE HABITAT MESH TYPE AGE EFL WEIGHT SEX
3/21/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 mono 933 11.8 f
3/21/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 mono 935 12.2 f
3/21/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 mono 939 14.0 f
3/21/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 mono 942 11.2 f
3/30/2005 Demopolis FLB 152 mono 5 808 6.7 m
3/30/2005 Demopolis FLB 102 mono 5* 817 6.7 m
3/30/2005 Demopolis FLB 152 mono 5 834 7.0 m
3/30/2005 Demopolis FLB 127 mono 869 9.7 f
3/30/2005 Demopolis FLB 127 mono 7 892 8.6 m
3/30/2005 Demopolis FLB 102 mono 910 10.6 f
3/30/2005 Demopolis FLB 102 mono 940 14.5 f
3/30/2005 Demopolis FLB 152 mono 964 14.4 f
3/30/2005 Demopolis FLB 152 mono 1078 19.5 f
3/31/2005 NOX 102 mono 982 14.5 m
4/6/2005 Demopolis FLB 102 mono 8 876 8.9 m
4/6/2005 Demopolis FLB 102 mono 7 880 8.5 m
4/16/2005 Demopolis FLB 152 mono 883 8.9 f
4/16/2005 Demopolis FLB 102 mono 9* 915 10.2 m
4/20/2005 Demopolis FLB 127 multi 5 771 6.3 m
4/20/2005 Demopolis FLB 127 multi 6* 853 6.9 m
4/20/2005 Demopolis FLB 102 mono 8 865 8.9 m
4/20/2005 Demopolis FLB 152 multi 7 874 8.1 m
4/20/2005 Demopolis FLB 127 multi 8* 895 8.5 m
4/20/2005 Demopolis FLB 102 mono 10* 930 9.0 m
4/20/2005 Demopolis FLB 102 mono 931 12.4 f
4/20/2005 Demopolis FLB 127 multi 10* 934 9.0 m
4/22/2005 Demopolis TWB 152 mono 3 648 4.0 m
4/22/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 multi 651 3.7
4/22/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 multi 680 4.0
4/22/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 multi 5* 791 6.6 m
4/22/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 multi 4 811 8.3 m
4/22/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 multi 6 813 7.2 m
4/22/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 multi 820 6.8 f
4/22/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 multi 6 840 7.3 m
4/22/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 multi 854 7.2 f
4/22/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 multi 856 9.4 f
4/22/2005 Demopolis TWB 152 multi 8 880 9.3 m
4/22/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 multi 7 883 8.0 m
4/22/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 multi 898 9.8 f
4/25/2005 Demopolis FLB 127 multi 6 836 7.5 m
4/25/2005 Demopolis FLB 127 multi 8 850 8.0 m
4/25/2005 Demopolis FLB 127 mono 872 8.7
4/25/2005 Demopolis FLB 127 multi 8 872 10.0 m
4/25/2005 Demopolis FLB 127 multi 903 10.5 f
160
TABLE C1 (continued).
DATE LAKE HABITAT MESH TYPE AGE EFL WEIGHT SEX
4/25/2005 Demopolis FLB 127 multi 7 928 9.4 m
4/25/2005 Demopolis FLB 127 multi 12 953 10.6 m
4/25/2005 Demopolis FLB 127 multi 12* 970 12.1 m
4/25/2005 Demopolis FLB 127 multi 12 974 12.0 m
4/25/2005 Demopolis FLB 127 multi 990 13.8 f
5/6/2005 Demopolis FLB 102 multi 716 4.7
5/6/2005 Demopolis FLB 127 multi 4 730 4.9 m
5/6/2005 Demopolis FLB 127 multi 745 5.8
5/6/2005 Demopolis FLB 152 multi 765 6.1
5/6/2005 Demopolis FLB 152 multi 768 6.1
5/6/2005 Demopolis FLB 102 multi 4 790 5.4 m
5/6/2005 Demopolis FLB 127 multi 5* 804 6.7 m
5/6/2005 Demopolis FLB 102 multi 7 834 7.3 m
5/6/2005 Demopolis FLB 127 multi 6* 843 8.2 m
5/6/2005 Demopolis FLB 127 multi 856 9.6 f
5/6/2005 Demopolis FLB 152 multi 6 856 8.5 m
5/6/2005 Demopolis FLB 127 multi 860 7.7 f
5/6/2005 Demopolis FLB 127 multi 6 875 8.4 m
5/6/2005 Demopolis FLB 127 multi 7* 885 10.1 m
5/6/2005 Demopolis FLB 152 multi 8* 896 9.2 m
5/6/2005 Demopolis FLB 152 multi 8* 900 9.6 m
5/6/2005 Demopolis FLB 127 multi 8* 906 10.2 m
5/6/2005 Demopolis FLB 127 multi 912 9.6 f
5/6/2005 Demopolis FLB 127 multi 914 9.2 f
5/6/2005 Demopolis FLB 102 multi 918 10.4 f
5/6/2005 Demopolis FLB 127 multi 9 920 10.0 m
5/6/2005 Demopolis FLB 127 multi 952 11.9 f
5/6/2005 Demopolis FLB 127 multi 960 13.5 f
5/6/2005 Demopolis FLB 152 multi 963 12.3 f
5/6/2005 Demopolis FLB 127 multi 12* 1034 14.9 m
5/10/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 multi 639 3.9
5/10/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 multi 717 5.2
5/10/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 multi 745 5.8
5/10/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 multi 751 6.1 f
5/10/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 multi 4* 775 6.8 m
5/10/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 multi 782 7.0 f
5/10/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 multi 6 805 7.1 m
5/10/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 multi 6 813 7.7 m
5/10/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 multi 7 820 7.3 m
5/10/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 multi 6 822 8.0 m
5/10/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 multi 6 845 7.9 m
5/10/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 multi 846 10.2
5/10/2005 Demopolis TWB 152 multi 6 849 8.4 m
5/10/2005 Demopolis TWB 152 multi 7 850 8.4 m
161
TABLE C1 (continued).
DATE LAKE HABITAT MESH TYPE AGE EFL WEIGHT SEX
5/10/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 multi 852 9.9 f
5/10/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 multi 860 9.3 f
5/10/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 multi 868 8.9 f
5/10/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 multi 873 8.5
5/10/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 multi 7 876 9.2 m
5/10/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 multi 880 8.6 f
5/10/2005 Demopolis TWB 152 multi 882 9.0 f
5/10/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 multi 6 888 8.6 m
5/10/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 multi 910 10.0 f
5/10/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 multi 914 10.1 f
5/10/2005 Demopolis TWB 127 multi 955 12.8 f
