1. Propagation and restoration of rare fishes: keys to success.
Patrick L. Rakes and J. R. Shute,
Conservation Fisheries, Inc.
Today I’d like to try to use some of the experiences of our organization to try to illustrate just how difficult the recovery of rare fishes can be, how long a commitment of time and resources is required, and how essential multiple partnerships are to the success of a restoration project.

2. We are Conservation Fisheries, Inc
We are Conservation Fisheries, Inc., a private, non-profit small corporation in Knoxville, TN.

3. Mission Statement: Conservation Fisheries is dedicated
Conservation Fisheries is dedicated
to the preservation of aquatic biodiversity and ecosystems in the southeastern
United States, concentrating
on the conservation and recovery
of rare freshwater fishes
using captive propagation,
habitat assessment,
and low impact monitoring techniques
We seek to conserve SE U.S. aquatic life, particularly small, non-game fish, specializing in captive propagation and specialized survey methods:

4. especially direct observation via snorkeling…

5. 3424 Division Street, Knoxville, TN
We operate a 5000 sq ft “hatchery” facility…
3424 Division Street, Knoxville, TN

6. BTM racks
…filled with >600 tanks with more than 25,000 gallons capacity.
We have spawned nearly 60 native fish spp.
Annually we propagate or maintain ~40 unique populations.

7. CFI PARTNERS U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service; U. S. Forest Service;
U. S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division; National Park Service; USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service; Environmental Protection Agency; Tennessee Valley Authority; Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources; Arkansas Game & Fish Commission; Kentucky State Game & Fish Division; Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks; North Carolina Wildlife Resources Agency; Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency; Virginia Division of Game & Inland Fishes; The Nature Conservancy; The Tennessee Aquarium; The University of Tennessee; Tennessee Tech University; The World Wildlife Fund; ALCOA; and International Paper.
This requires tremendous support and many, many partnerships. Federal agencies, state agencies, academic partners, non-profit NGOs, even a few for-profits.

8. How Do You Recover Rare Species?
Habitat protection!
Habitat restoration!
Stocking
Augmentation
Reintroduction/population restoration
Translocation vs. Propagation
Propagation Purposes:
reintroductions / arks
life history research (sometimes surrogates)
toxicity tolerance
mussel hosts
So, how do you do this? First, you must have available habitat. This alone requires more partnerships than this discussion could possibly cover! Habitat conservation is essential but mostly outside our direct involvement other than as sentinels and consultants. We have been involved in some habitat restoration projects and some augmentation actions in the past, but as mentioned earlier, we specialize in captive propagation, and for more than simply reintroductions.

9. How Do You Recover Rare Species?
Who leads?
Who pays / funds?
Who is responsible to whom?
How do you gauge success?
So who implements recovery activities? Federal agencies? State? A non-profit? Does serendipity contribute? YES! To all the above…
I’d argue that EVERY project’s different-- due to funding, jurisdictions, the species involved, the streams targeted, etc.-- but all require multiple partnerships, because no one entity can do it alone…

10. The “Abrams Creek Story”
Formerly held 67 of GSMNP’s 79 known fish species
Poisoned with rotenone in 1957 to “reclaim” for trophy trout fishery
Only 35 species persisted/returned from tributaries; smoky & yellowfin madtoms considered extinct after “reclamation”
CFI—with USFWS, TWRA, USFS, NPS— began attempts to restore four federally listed species in 1986:
Since first attempting to propagate endangered fish in 1986, we’ve witnessed many successes--along with a few failures. All of our successes have involved long term multiple partnerships. A project to restore populations of four rare fishes into Abrams Creek in the Little Tennessee River system has been underway now for more than 22 years, with continuous support and/or funding from Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Cherokee National Forest, and others. The project has been funded because all the fish are on the U.S. Endangered Species List:

11. Smoky madtom, Noturus baileyi (E)
The smoky madtom
Smoky madtom, Noturus baileyi (E)

12. Yellowfin madtom, N. flavipinnis (T)
The yellowfin madtom
Yellowfin madtom, N. flavipinnis (T)

13. The former duskytail darter, now Citico darter
Duskytail darter, Etheostoma percnurum (E) [now Citico darter, E. sitikuense]

14. Spotfin chub, Erimonax monachus (T)
and the spotfin chub
Spotfin chub, Erimonax monachus (T)

15. Justification for Restoration
“Extinct” madtoms & darter rediscovered in Citico Creek ~1980; life histories: UTK M.S. students
Abrams Crk extirpations = one-time event; habitat relatively undisturbed; mostly “protected” public lands/watershed
Problem: spotfin chub = only sp. with wild source population sufficient for translocations
Madtoms & darter would require propagation to produce numbers sufficient for reintroductions (efforts initiated at UTK in 1986) ‘post-theses’
Looking back, considering serendipity, this project has been a “perfect storm” of opportunity for attempting population restorations, particularly since propagation would be required and two hapless aquarist grad students were available (J.R. and self) and literally enthralled by the two visionaries that proposed the idea– our mentor Dr. David Etnier and “the man with the money” Dick Biggins, USFWS Asheville. “Sure, we said… we can do that!”

16. Early Abrams release w/ media
So we started trying to propagate these fish, managed to produce enough to stock…
Early Abrams release w/ media

17. Restoration Effort History
Each species produced in numbers dependent on collection permits, life history, and annual collection & survivorship variation:
Madtoms ~25-600/yr/sp. (typically )[3200]
Darters /yr (typically ~200)[3400]
Chubs /yr [11,000]
Stocked at 1-5 sites/yr
Chubs translocated (unsuccessfully) Propagated & stocked (“ditto”)
Madtoms stocked 1st fall ‘86-’91 / 1st spring ’93--
Stocking ceased after 2001 for darters, 2002 for madtoms… …monitoring only since then:
And learned an incredible amount along the way. A CONSTANT learning process! All four species were unique in the numbers we were permitted to collect and produce, due to the unique life history of each. We saw very little initial evidence of survivorship to provide positive feedback… Funding and continuity were seriously threatened, but the “faith” of key individuals in funding and permitting agencies kept the project going… Spotfin chubs never “took”, and we only now think we’re learning why. But for the other three species we can now toast success!

18. Summary / Conclusions Fortuitous issues:
Smoky madtoms, yellowfin madtoms, & Citico darters established, reproducing and expanding population sizes and distributions
Success slow– required 20 years for this pilot project, but subsequent restoration efforts with same species have benefited / faster success (Tellico River)
Fortuitous issues:
Abrams pristine/protected
Recovery Plans called for propagation & reintroductions (funding source available)
Abrams in central part of original ranges of spp.
all parties agreed to effort! (NEPs required now)
The madtoms and darter have established, expanding populations.
It took a long time, but a subsequent Tellico River restoration effort with all 4 species is exhibiting success far faster than the Abrams Creek project.
Both these projects enjoy multiple circumstances contributing mightily to the chances for success:
1) both have available habitat resulting from public lands ownership protecting watersheds and target streams
2) both involve listed species, resulting in detailed plans for recovery and funding
3) both benefit from willing and patient partners:

19. PARTNERS U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service [$]
U. S. Forest Service [$ / source]
National Park Service [site]
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency [$]
The Tennessee Aquarium [rearing]
The University of Tennessee [research]
Tennessee Tech University [research]
The World Wildlife Fund [$--equipment]
ALCOA [$]
CFI [implementation / knowledge]
TWRA, incredibly, has continuously funded this work with Section 6 Endangered Species Recovery monies since 1986! Fish & Wildlife and the Cherokee National Forest have also contributed funding from early in the effort…
An annual Rare Fishes Meeting has evolved out of the initial partner planning meetings associated with this project, now covering conservation activities for essentially all rare fish in Tennessee and many adjacent states… originally hosted by UTK, then CFI, and now USFWS and TWRA.

20. Future Plans / Work in Progress
Determine why smoky madtoms are only doing well in lower creek, duskytails only in upper
Determine total extent of available habitat and percent occupied
Develop long-term monitoring program and more quantitative assessments of populations
Compare genetic make-up of restored vs source populations
Develop long-term “fish passage” genetic exchange program between Abrams, Citico, and Tellico populations
Restoration results, even in this successful project, have been mixed, revealing our lack of understanding of crucial life history and ecology and habitat requirements and population genetics of such imperiled fishes. These revealed short-comings now drive follow-up research on the restored populations, conducted largely by UTK and TTU grad students, as well as the FWS’s Warm Springs Conservation Genetics Lab.

21. Additional Information:
Shute, J. R., P. L. Rakes, and P. W. Shute Reintroduction of four imperiled fishes in Abrams Creek, Tennessee. Southeastern Naturalist 4(1):
We have a summary of the effort published in SE Naturalist plus our website has additional information…

22. Barrens topminnow, Fundulus julisia (BTM)
candidate spp. limited to privately owned springs & headwaters
imperilment recognized since 1970s; Conservation Strategy initiated August 2000
propagated fish stocked at numerous restoration sites
TTU student research confirmed inability to compete with non-native Gambusia
large number of partners:
Another species recovery effort is aimed at the object of my thesis research back in the dark ages, the Barrens topminnow. I’ve maintained ark populations since the early 1980s, privately and at CFI, but steep declines in the 1990s prompted USFWS & TWRA, along with many partners to attempt conservation and recovery actions, along with attempting to determine the principle causes of decline. As I had circumstantially suspected, in this instance it now looks like the introduced western mosquitofish is the primary culprit…

23. BTM PARTNERS Arnold Air Force Base Conservation Fisheries, Inc.
The Nature Conservancy—Tennessee Chapter
Tennessee Aquarium
Tennessee Aquatic Research Institute
Tennessee Department of Agriculture
Tennessee Tech University
Tennessee Valley Authority
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
…and many private landowners…
A lot of time, effort, and many partners are involved in this effort, and a number of historic as well as new populations have been at least temporarily restored, but, unfortunately, it’s beginning to look like the species may be functionally extinct in the wild in the absence of permanent management and conservation in protected refugia… Like most exotic species problems, once the “cat’s out of the bag”…

24. Shoal Creek Restoration Effort
Boulder darter
Etheostoma wapiti
Spotfin chub
Erimonax monachus
stream entirely on private lands; required NEP for endangered species restoration
Clean Water Act recovery example (sewage, heavy metals)
deep biogeographic/taxonomic discussions about appropriate spotfin source
partners:
Shoal Creek is a 6th order stream draining south-central TN into N AL where 2 listed spp were collected in the late 19th century. Industrial pollution and sewage eliminated both, along with many other species, but recovery of the stream has resulted in a fantastic return of much of the aquatic fauna that had access from refugia. The listed species’ nearest populations were isolated by dams and/or distance. It required a lot of effort to publish an NEP and select an appropriate source population for the spotfin, but propagation for the effort resulted in the first stockings in We’ve already observed spotfins >10 creek miles from stocking sites and as well as evidence of wild reproduction by the darters for three consecutive years and dispersal >3 miles.

25. SHOAL CREEK PARTNERS
Alabama Department of Conservation & Natural Resources
Conservation Fisheries, Inc.
International Paper
Iron City, TN
Shoal Creek Canoe Run
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USFWS National Fish Hatcheries
University of Alabama & St. Louis University
World Wildlife Fund
We have diverse public and private partners in this effort. We are optimistic that both these species will become established, with the result that each will then have an additional viable population, rather than one highly vulnerable one, as is currently the case for the boulder darter.

26. Conasauga River Rare Fish Monitoring
Dr. Carol Johnston
Auburn University
Jim Herrig
Cherokee NF
Peggy Shute
TVA
PLR
CFI
Conasauga River Rare Fish Monitoring
I’ve over-used this photo, but I think it perfectly illustrates and closes this topic. Restoration efforts require the extended collaboration of many partners, each with essential roles often unique to each project. For all such efforts, however, success is dependent upon all involved, and requires the patience and understanding that such efforts are necessarily long-term and adaptive learning processes. Fear of wet feet spells failure!

27. Q U E S T I O N S ?