Old- IJvbtfi Resources — Coastal & Marine Ecosxstcnis 



26i 



species are often inadequate, rare, or nonexis- 

 tent. Early or baseline data are often incompati- 

 ble with modem surveys, and long-term data 

 bases, although growing, are still in their early 

 years. 



Some changes appear to be trends. First, the 

 number of fish species in the Hudson River 

 appears to be increasing. The presence of recent 

 entrants into the river — such as gizzard shad, 

 rudd. grass carp, central mudminnow {Uiuhni 

 limi), white bass {Moiviw chrysups), and fresh- 

 water drum — may create management concerns 

 in the future. 



Second, another group of fish appears to be 

 declining, although it seems that only a few 

 species, if any. have been extiipated. This group 

 consists of fish that were common in the 1936 

 survey of the river but rare in all recent collec- 

 tions, including the bridle shiner {Nolropis 

 bifrenatus). common shiner (Luxihis conmtits). 

 comely shiner (Notropis amoemis), spotfin 

 shiner {Cyphnella spiloptera). creek chub 

 {ScDiotilits atmmavidatiis). noilheni hog sucker 

 {Hypt'iiiclliini nigricans), and creek chubsucker 

 (Erimxzon oblongiis). These fish remain com- 

 mon, or at least present, in tributaries to the 

 lower Hudson River. Their absence from the 

 main channel may result from increasing devel- 

 opment and loss of riparian vegetation at the 

 mouths of many tributaries, which may isolate 

 tributary populations from those of the main 

 channel and lead to the creation of sub- or new 

 populations. 



The third apparent trend is that, although 

 richness is increasing, diversity (an expression 

 that includes the number of species and their 

 relative abundance) in the nearshore fish assem- 



blage has declined because of the increase in 

 population size of the dominant species. 



Studies that allow a better assessment of 

 trends in the Hudson River fish assemblage will 

 provide broad-based benefits. Management 

 agencies, commercial fishing operations, and 

 individual anglers, for example, all have an 

 interest in the fisheries and fish of the river. 

 Other river users, such as municipal planners 

 and utility companies, also will gain from 

 increased knowledge of the population trends of 

 river-dwelling organisms because the trends 

 retlect changes in water-quality conditions. 



References 



B.imhoiise. L.W., R J. Klaiida. D.S. VauglKin, and R,L. 



Kendall, eds. 1988. Science, law. and Hudson River 



power plants. A case study in environmcnlal impact 



assessment. Anieiican Fisheiies Society Monograph 4. 



.^47 pp. 

 Bean. T.H. I9(J3. Catalogue of the fishes of New York. New 



York State Museum Bull. 60. Zoology 9. 784 pp. 

 DeKay. J.E. 1842. Zoology of New York or the New York 



fauna. Part IV. Fishes. W. and A. White and J. Visscher. 



Albany. NY. 415 pp. 

 Greeley, J.R. 1937. Fishes of the area with annotated list. 



Pages 4.'i- 103 in E. Moore, ed. A biological survey of the 



lower Hudson watershed. Supplemental to 26th Annual 



Report. State of New York Conservation Department. 



Albany. 

 Limburg, K.E., M.A. Moran, and W.H. McDowell. 1986. 



The Hudson River ecosystem. Springer- Verlag. New 



York. 331 pp. 

 Mitchill. S.L. ISL^. The fishes of New York, described and 



arranged. Transactions of the Literary and Philosophical 



Society (1814) 1:355-492. 

 Smith, C.L. 1985. Inland fishes of New York State. 



Department of Environmental Conservation. Albany. 522 



pp. 

 Smith. C.L.. and T.R. Lake. 1990. Documentation of the 



Hudson River fish fauna. American Museum Novitates 



2981. 17 pp. 



For further information: 



Robert A. Daniels 



New York State Museum 



145 Jordan Rd. 



Troy, NY 12180 



The Chesapeake Bay is the nation's largest 

 estuary; its watershed covers 165,760 km- 

 (64,000 mi-) and is occupied by 13 million peo- 

 ple. By the 1980's, the bay's waters were 

 enriched with nutrients from agriculture and 

 loaded with pollutants from urban and suburban 

 areas. The bay's submersed grasses were disap- 

 pearing, fisheries 2 centuries old were in serious 

 decline, and wetlands and other natural habitats 

 were under continuing threats of development 

 (Flemeretal. 1983). ^ 



In 1983 the federal government. Virginia. 

 Maryland. Pennsylvania, the District of 

 Columbia. and the Chesapeake Bay 

 Commission formally declared their intent to 

 work cooperatively to restore the natural 

 resources of the bay. Their partnership, known 

 as the Chesapeake Bay Program, attacked 

 water-quality problems by adopting measures to 

 reduce inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus from 



urban, industrial, and agricultural sources and 

 to increase levels of dissolved oxygen in bay 

 waters. Simultaneously, scientists and managers 

 determined the status of bay species and natur- 

 al habitats and began to track historical and 

 ongoing trends. 



Status and trends assumed special relevance 

 as they were incorporated into managerial 

 objectives and goals, or as indices of the success 

 of programs and policies (Chesapeake Bay 

 Implementation Committee 1988). Trends for 

 three habitats — submersed aquatic vegetation 

 beds, wetlands, and forests; four key aquatic 

 species — oysters (Crassoslrea virginica), blue 

 crabs (Callinectes sapidiis). striped bass 

 (Morone saxatilis), and American shad (Alosa 

 sapidissima): and waterfowl are summarized 

 below. These trends represent a mixture of mod- 

 erate successes and continuing challenges for 

 managers of the bay. 



Natural 



Resources in 



the 



Chesapeake 



Bay 



Watershed 



by 



Edward Pendleton 



National Biological Service 



