7946

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 7946
• Author: Hall, G. E.
• Title: Reservoir Fishery Research Needs And Priorities
• USFW Year: 1985
• USFW - Doc Type: Fisheries
• Copyright Material: YES

"'

What do you consider to be the most pressing needs
for further information in this regard. both in basic
research and management-type investigations?
The highest priorities indicated were: (1) better knowledge
of water quality/fish interactions; (2) ability to predict impacts
of reservoir drawdowns and/or water level fluctuations; and
(3) more information on proven reservoir management tech-
niques (stocking, fish sampling, and habitat improvements).
Other high priority needs were: (1) an understanding of the
factors associated with reservoir aging; (2) construction ~f
models to predict angler harvest and success; and (3) availability
of improved data analyses to better categorize reservoirs.
Thirty-two additional needs were mentioned, of which 17
were suggested by only one respondent. Widespread interest
was indicated by states in the development and maintenance
of a long-term reservoir fisheries data base in a useful form
readily available to everyone.l

Given the present budgetary, personnel. and other
constraints, which research aspects do you think should
be addressed first? Which should re.ceive the most atten-
tion?
The majority of re
~esmm re~
reatest attention. A large number of replies cited the great
need for models to predict effects of reservoir fluctuations,
while others thought water quality/fish relationships should
have highest priority. Somewhat fewer respondents considered
the need for studies of predator/prey and fish community
interactions and systems for classification of reservoirs to be
most important.
To generalize, it is apparent that there is great interest in
seeing more reservoir research directed toward (1) the effects
of such management activities as fish stocking and introduc-
tions, (2) water level manipulation, and (3) development and
maintenance of a reservoir fisheries data base.
The many replies relating to reservoir operation, water
level, and water quality are a reflection of the large number
of replies from federal construction agencies, particularly the
Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation. Other
concerns of these agencies include aquatic vegetation control,
fish attractor installation and performance, basin clearing
plans, recreational use data, impacts of multi. level outlets,
and pumped storage projects. Federal resource agencies such
as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine
Fisheries Service, and the Tennessee Valley Authority were
most interested in ecosystem models, predictive equations,
sampling techniques, predator/prey relationships, and impacts
of contaminants.
University professionals indicated that predator/prey mod-
els, water level fluctuations, reservoir classification schemes,
fish production, and harvest regulations should have highest
priority. Private conservation agencies were most interested
in the continuation of the national data base, development of
predictive models, effects of water level manipulations, better
sampling gear, and evaluation of experimental fish-harvesting
schemes.
State agency responses, with respect to research priorities,

1 This activity was one of the ongoing major contributions of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's National Reservoir Research Program;
however, the Service has since contracted with a private consulting
group for updated and expanded reservoir standing crop and harvest
data bases.

4

varied greatly in detail and covered many subjects. When
grouped in broad subject areas and classified according to
geographic regions, they provide the best indication of the
overall state priorities. Improved methods of lake classification,
modeling of fishery management problems and data base
management are primary concerns. Better information on
food chains, including predator/prey interactions, was also
given top priority. The expressed need for models and data
base management included requests for better fish population
and fish harvest predictive methods, as well as for models to
predict year-class strength and species interactions. More
efficient utilization of stocked fish was also a widespread state
concern. Other cited needs concerned the effects of reservoir
water level manipulations, including impacts on downstream
fish communities. Improved and standardized sampling methods
received some priority. Items of regional interest are harvest
regulation in the South and Midwest, acid rain and aquatic
vegetation control in the Northeast, and sedimentation and
rough fish control in the West. Both surveys left no doubt
that reservoir research needs are generally similar in priority
throughout the country.

In your opinion, do the indicated fishery research needs
on reservoirs warrant national attention and responsibility?
Or, is this appropriately and primarily a program respon-
sibility for the individual states and associated universities?
Over 90 percent of the survey respondents considered
reservoir research to be a federal responsibility. This is so
because reservoirs are federal projects with impacts that
dramatically alter the natural environment. There was a
clearly prevailing view that states alone cannot do a thorough
job of reservoir research because of short-term priorities and
limited funds. Most respondents believe that the federal
government has an obligation to remain involved through
assistance in planning and development, coordination of
specific research projects, and monitoring of long-term efforts.
The need for funding support received high priority; however,-
no individual or agency thought that the federal government
should have the total responsibility. There is strong opinion
that the federal government should demonstrate an acceptance
of its responsibility to participate where the commitment of
energy, time, and funds are most effective.
Among state agencies, there is almost total agreement that
reservoir fisheries research warrants federal attention and that
coordination of this research requires a regional and/or
national approach. There is also a clear concensus that the
states have the fisheries management responsibility.
Many states voiced the need for a national reservoir data
base and for ongoing analyses of fish population and harvest
data. Some thought this was essential to their management
activities and unlikely to be obtained without continuing
federal support. There is strong agreement that the federal
government must continue to maintain a comprehensive
reservoir fisheries data base.

If, in question 4, you believe federal responsibility is
preferable, do you have any thoughts on how this could
or should be best accomplished?
Although most of the nearly 100 respondents to the
questionnaires felt that reservoir research was a federal
responsibility deserving national attention, there is a lack of
concensus concerning how it should be funded and adminis-
tered. Recommendations for funding were addressed by about
50 percent of all respondents. Among these, about half

Fisheries, Vol. 10, No.2