Techniques to Reduce Catch-and- Release Mortality Learn how you can help reduce catch and release mortality.

Introduction:

Fishing effort in Florida has increased dramatically over the past decade and is forecast to continue as Florida’s resident population of 14.7 million increases daily by about 1,000 people. More than 40 million tourists visit the state annually, most with coastal destinations. Fishing is a favorite pastime of Florida’s residents and visitors, and in 1997, saltwater anglers made about 24 million fishing trips and caught 141 million marine fishes, 71.5 million of which were released. Because increased exploitation could negatively impact Florida fisheries, scientists and managers must remain diligent and innovative in their efforts to utilize fishery resources wisely and conservatively.

Managers of Florida’s fisheries use a combination of traditional regulations to control harvests and protect fish stocks. These measures include bag limits, minimum and maximum sizes, closed seasons and areas, and in some cases, no harvest is allowed unless a special permit is purchased. Bag limits reduce the number of fish that are harvested and allocate the catch over time so that the year’s total harvest is not taken in one season. Aggregate bag limits are sometimes applied collectively to a complex of species such as grunts and snappers, so that the community is not overfished. Minimum and maximum sizes, or “slot,” limits protect sexually immature fish and may be imposed to create a “trophy” fishery, i.e., a fishery that produces extremely large individuals.

Closed seasons and closed areas protect a species during spawning, especially when fish return yearly for spawning at known locations. The “no harvest” rule is implemented when a stock or species, for example, Goliath Grouper (jewfish), is severely overfished. To succeed, Florida’s fisheries management strategies of size limits and closed seasons depend on the survival of fish that are caught and released. The fate of hook-and-line caught fishes that are released largely depends on the expertise and dexterity of the angler. Anglers practicing a few straightforward and intuitive techniques can increase survival of released fishes.

“Limit your kill; don’t kill your limit!”

 
After being caught and released by an angler, fish may die for a variety of reasons. The most common causes of death are the physiological stresses caused by the struggle during capture and injuries caused by the hook or the angler. Some fish may die even though they appear unharmed and despite efforts at revival. Fish that struggle intensely for a long time during capture are usually exhausted and stressed from the accumulation of excessive amounts of lactic acid in their muscles and blood. Severe exhaustion causes physiological imbalance, muscle failure, or death. Therefore, use the proper weight-class tackle; land your catch quickly, and when possible, leave the fish in the water while you release it. Any exhausted animal needs oxygen to recover!

Hook wounds may appear minor to anglers, but damage to the gills, eyes, or internal organs can be fatal. If the fish is hooked deep in the throat or gut, research shows that it is best to cut the leader at the hook and leave the hook in the fish. Prolonged attempts to remove the hook often do more harm than good. In the Fish and Wildlife Research Institute’s (FWRI)* study of release mortality in snook, 24 snook were deep hooked. We removed the hooks from 12 snook, and we left the hook intact and cut the leader in the other 12 snook. We found that four of the 12 deep-hooked snook died after the hooks were removed. None died when we simply cut the leader and left the hook alone. Fish are capable of rejecting, expelling, or encapsulating hooks. Encapsulation is a process whereby the fishes’ healing process causes the hook to be covered with an inert matrix of calcified material; or a-cellular tissue. Steel and bronze hooks are less toxic and are rejected or “dissolved” sooner than are stainless steel and cadmium-plated or nickel-plated hooks.

Two types of hooks, barbless and circle hooks, are known to reduce injury and mortality of released fishes. Barbless hooks reduce tissue damage and handling stress because they can be removed quickly and easily. Barbless hooks are popular in the freshwater trout fisheries and are becoming increasingly popular with saltwater anglers. A Florida study conducted on snappers and groupers demonstrated that catch rates are the same for barbed and barbless hooks. If barbless hooks are not available, simply use pliers to crimp or remove the barbs from regular hooks. A caveat is called for when using these types of hooks: after having hooked your quarry, don’t give the fish any slack, because it will be more likely to escape from barbless hooks than from regular hooks.

The use of circle hooks has been researched and compared to regular hooks–often called “J” hooks–in several fisheries. In all of them except in the flatfish, or flounder, fishery, circle hooks were shown to result in significantly lower hooking mortality and higher catch rates. In one study, tunas and billfishes were hooked in the jaw 90% of the time. Circle hooks reduced deep hooking fourfold in the striped bass fishery while “J” hooks were 21 times more likely to cause a bleeding injury. Circle hooks are a bit more tedious to use, especially with live bait, but the advantages should compel anglers to give them an honest trial. Overall, research shows that circle hooks improve catch rates and reduce hooking mortality which results in positive impacts on exploited fish stocks.

Studies on striped bass, spotted seatrout, and snook have shown that live bait was used in most cases of hook-related mortality and that “gut hooking” was the primary cause of death. Artificial lures are generally in motion, so the fish takes the bait and the hook is set before the lure can be swallowed. To avoid internal damage from gut hooking, when you use live or dead bait try to set the hook immediately; with natural bait, there is less motion–the fishes’ immediate reaction is to swallow the bait. If you allow the fish to run with the bait, the chances of gut hooking the fish increase.

Survival rates for some Florida fishes
Controlled studies have shown that most fish released after hook-and-line capture, survive. Researchers working in Boca Grande Pass tagged 27 tarpon with sonic transmitters and found that 26 of these hook-and-line-caught fish survived. The one fish that died had been lifted from the water for a prerelease photograph. Scientists repeatedly caught bonefish held in a large pond in the Florida Keys and found that 96% survived capture. A few of the bonefish that ultimately died had been caught five to ten times each, which suggests that bonefish hooked and released in the wild probably have an even higher survival rate. Angler-caught snook held in large net-pens throughout Florida had a 98% survival rate. Most of the snook that died were caught with live bait, consistent with studies showing that fish caught with lures generally survive. Spotted seatrout caught in Tampa Bay had a 95% survival rate. Hook position affected survival rates; trout hooked in the gills or gut had lower survival rates than those hooked in the mouth. Redfish survival rates range from 84% in Georgia waters to 96% in Texas waters. Like seatrout, hook position affected survival rates; more than 50% of the throat or gut hooked fish died. These studies demonstrate that catch-and-release-fishing works–most fish that are released survive. By following a few simple guidelines, anglers can maximize survival rates.

Venting distended gas bladders

 
Release of sublegal-sized groupers and snappers is imperative because of increased minimum sizes and implementation of bag limits. When these fishes are hauled from depths greater than about 30 feet, their air bladders become distended and many times cause their stomachs to evert, or turn inside out, through their mouths. Research is inconclusive regarding the benefits of venting snappers. The uncertainty may be due to injury of internal organs resulting from improper insertion of the venting tool into these narrow-bodied fishes. In snappers, to avoid puncture of the heart, liver, intestine, or gonad, it is crucial to insert the needle or cannula just posterior to the tip of the pectoral fin. Groupers, being wider bodied, better survive deflation, and venting has been shown to positively increase their survival. The technique is the same for both kinds of fishes.

The venting device should be a hollow needle no longer than 1½ inches with an inside diameter of about 1/8 inch or less, anything much larger and you run the risk of improper healing or infection. Puncture the body wall at the tip of the pectoral fin until you hear the escape of trapped air. The angle should be about 60-75 degrees, which improves the ease of insertion. Do not insert the needle too deep. If resistance is encountered, stop and try in a slightly different location or angle. Leave the needle in place until you are sure that most of the swelling or distension has been relieved. Never puncture the stomach or try to force the stomach back into the body. The fish will accomplish this better than we ever could!

Small, narrow-bodied fishes such as porgies, grunts, angelfish, and most snappers do well if they are simply returned to the water as quickly as possible. A study conducted in the Florida Keys showed that over 90% of individuals of these species are able to return to the bottom without venting. Survival of groupers, tilefish, and large snappers is increased when their distended gas bladders are vented.

Some guidelines for catch-and-release angling

 
The most important steps an angler can take to ensure a successful release are to hook and land the fish as quickly as possible, leave the fish in the water while removing the hook, and release the fish quickly. There are several other ways to improve survival rates:

• Whatever you do, do it quickly. Keeping an exhausted fish out of water is like holding a bag over a runner who has just completed a marathon. They both need oxygen to recuperate.

• Wet your hands or gloves before handling the fish. Do not injure the eyes or gills. Placing the fish on a wet towel will help the fish retain its protective slime. To keep the fish still, place it on its back or cover its eyes with a wet towel. Control the fish at all times! If you drop the fish, its chances of injury and death increase.

• Decide beforehand which fish are to be kept; immediately release all others. Do not engage in a prolonged debate over whether or not to release the fish after the fish has been landed. Never place a fish in your live well intending to release it later if you catch a larger one. Once you make a decision to keep a fish, stick with it. The fishes you release from your live well have a decreased chance of survival.

• Avoid the use of gaffs, and never remove large fish such as tarpon from the water. Large fish can injure themselves and the crew and should, therefore, be treated with respect. Take a photograph of the fish in the water and release it.

• Refrain from holding fish in a vertical position when inspecting or photographing them. Internal organs are displaced and stress is increased in this unnatural position. Large fish should never be held by the bottom jaw only, with a boca grip or otherwise (any tool designed to grip the lower jaw of caught fish to facilitate handling). Hold the fish horizontally by the lower jaw with one hand, and support the belly with the other hand. If unsupported, many large fish, especially snook, will rupture the isthmus–a cartilaginous bundle of ligaments that connects the head and body–and the fish will die a slow death from starvation. This connection is necessary for the tremendous gulping action during feeding.

• If the hook is difficult to remove by hand, use long-nosed pliers or a hook-removal tool. Do not tear additional tissue by removing the hook. Back the hook through the original wound. If this fails, cut the leader and pull the hook forward through the injury. Regardless whether or not you intend to keep the fish cut the leader close to the hook when releasing large Goliath Grouper (jewfish), tarpon, sharks, and other fishes that are gut hooked. Do not lift a gut-hooked fish out of the water by the leader; this can increase damage to the fish.

• Try fishing with barbless hooks, or crimp and remove the barb. Catch rates using barbed or barbless hooks are not significantly different. Barbless hooks are easier to remove, and they cause less physical damage to the fish.

• Use circle hooks. They cause less injury and increase catch rates.

• If your fish is in good shape, immediately return it to the water headfirst. If it does not swim or is lethargic or erratic, some “resuscitation” may be needed until the fish can swim on its own. Revive exhausted, but otherwise healthy fish by first placing one hand under the tail and holding the bottom lip with the other. If the fish is in fair to good shape, merely hold it headfirst into the current. If it is severely lethargic, depress the bottom lip to cause the jaw to gape and gently move the fish forward. Moving the fish in an erratic back and forth motion will just induce more stress. Have you ever seen a fish swim backward and forward? At the first sign of the fish attempting to swim away–let it go. Prolonged attempts at resuscitation will be stressful to the fish.

• Large pelagic species such as sharks and tarpon should be brought alongside the boat within 20 minutes of being hooked. If you are consistently landing exhausted fish that require extensive efforts at resuscitation, you should consider using heavier tackle.

• To vent or not to vent? Several studies have been conducted to determine if venting distended air bladders of fishes hauled from deep water increases survival. It is inconclusive whether it is beneficial to vent snappers; however, venting groupers has been shown to positively increase survival. It is important to learn and use proper procedures.

Practice and share these techniques! Teach your children and inexperienced anglers these few simple procedures to help ensure abundant fish populations for the future.

If you have any questions, please e-mail: ron.taylor@myfwc.com

• Formerly the Florida Marine Research Institute

 
Read more here: http://www.floridamarine.org/features/view_article.asp?id=3907

Further Studies

Catch and Release Fishing Effectiveness and Mortality

P. Reiss, BS.(a), M. Reiss, PhD.(b), J. Reiss, BS.(c).

(a) CEO, Acute Angling, Inc.;
(b) Dept. of Material Science, Univ. of Maryland;
(c) Lab. Supvr., Dept. of Neurobiology, Rutgers Univ

Abstract:

 
Recent studies have measured the effects of various tackle and fishing techniques on fish mortality and offer insights for optimization of the protective aspects of catch and release fishing programs. The study data suggests that with the application of specific tackle types and selected fishing and handling techniques, the success of catch and release programs can be significantly improved.

Recent data links the causes of catch and release angling mortality to all types of gear and techniques that increase the chances of ‘deep-hooking’ and elevated physiological stress. It is shown here that if a selection of fishery specific, mortality reducing techniques are applied, via angler education and fishing regulations, the conservation benefits of catch and release fishing can be optimized.

Continue reading…
http://www.acuteangling.com/Reference/C&RMortality.html

                                                     ____________   

Catch and Release

Maine Inland Fish and Wildlife Department:
http://www.maine.gov/ifw/

Catch and Release Studies:
Link 1

Link 2

_________________________________________

Didymo

What it is, where it is, prevention, sample collection and reports.

To identify didymo you must be a professional, or at least have a high-powered microscope and an identification book. If you do find mats that fit the didymo description, you can mail a sample to the U.S. Geological Survey for positive identification Source; Patagonia.

If you think you’ve found Didymo……….

Collecting Samples: Report suspected growths of didymo by collecting a small sample (put a pinch of the material in a vial with ethanol or dried in a folded business card). Label samples with the date, latitude and longitude (accurate site information).  
Send reports and samples to: Dr. Sarah Spaulding; U.S. Geological Survey; 999 18th St., Suite 300; Denver, Colorado 80202 USA; Email: sarah.spaulding@usgs.gov. Source; Patagonia

Didymosphenia geminata, commonly known as didymo or rock snot, is a species of diatom that grows in warm and shallow water. If it overgrows, it can form large mats on the bottom of lakes, rivers and streams. It is not considered a significant human health risk, but it can affect stream habitats and sources of food for fish and make recreational activities unpleasant. It is considered a nuisance organism or invasive species. The microscopic algae can be spread in a single drop of water. Source wikipedia

Basic Biology :Didymo is a versatile alga. It’s found at temperatures between 32 degrees and 80 degrees F, and can grow in slow moving, shallow waters as well as waters with greater depth and swift currents. The nutrients in the water also determine where you will find didymo. The puzzling thing about didymo is it doesn’t act like most algae; it blooms in waters with very low levels of nutrients. Most algae blooms, like red tide for example, bloom with excessive amounts of fertilizers and high nutrients. Max Bothwell of Environment Canada has made some interesting observations of didymo in some Vancouver Island streams. In upstream reaches with low nutrients, didymo growth was plentiful, but in reaches downstream from water treatment discharge (i.e. high nutrients) didymo growth was less and included a more diverse algae community. Source Leah C. Elwell From the Federation of Fly Fishers

Where it’s been found Locations across North America have experienced excessive algal growth, but not of the same magnitude as locations in New Zealand.

Places in North America that have experienced blooms of didymo include:
South Fork of the American River, California
Kootenai River, Montana
Rapid Creek, South Dakota
White River, Arkansas
Deer River, Alberta, Canada; and numerous rivers on Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada.

British Columbia: It has been spotted as part of plant species surveys in 2004. Other than this there has been no attempt in Canada to document its extent.

South Dakota: It has been present in Rapid Creek in South Dakota since at least 2005, and is blamed for a significant decline in the brown trout population. It is also present to lesser extents in other nearby locations.[5]

Tennessee: Didymo was found in the tailwaters of the Norris, Cherokee, Wilbur and South Holston hydroelectric dams in 2005. It is the first U.S. finding east of the Mississippi River.[6]
Virginia: Didymo was identified in western Virginia in the summer of 2006 in the Smith River, the Jackson River, and the Pound River.[7]

West Virginia:

Identified in three western Virginia rivers (Jackson, Pound and Smith). “In West Virginia, the DNR will work with other state and federal agencies, and anglers to monitor Didymo in the Elk River and other locations. http://www.wvdnr.gov/2008news/08news118.shtm

Vermont: In June 2007, didymo was discovered in the Connecticut River, near Bloomfield, Vermont, its first recorded discovery in the northeastern United States. The sighting was reported by a fishing guide and confirmed by Dr. Sarah Spaulding, a didymo expert from Denver, Colorado.[8]

Vermont: Identified during the summers of 2006 and 2007 in the Batten Kill (NY/VT), in 2007 in the Connecticut River (NH/VT), the White River (VT), and the Delaware River system (NY/PA), and in 2008 in the Gunpowder River (MD) and the Mad River (VT).

http://www.vtwaterquality.org/lakes/htm/ans/lp_didymo.htm

New Hampshire: Also during the summer of 2007, didymo was discovered for the first time in New Hampshire in the Connecticut River near Pittsburg.[9]

New York: In August 2007, didymo was first discovered in New York State in a section of the Battenkill River in Washington County.[10]
 

Maryland: In May 2008, didymo was found in the Gunpowder River in Baltimore County.[11]
Didymo was found in early 2008 in Gunpowder Falls below Prettyboy Reservoir in Baltimore County. Since July 2008, DNR and Baltimore County/DEPRM have been monitoring Didymo occurrence monthly in the Gunpowder Falls between Prettyboy and Loch Raven reservoirs. Source DNR Maryland

Below are maps containing Didymo locations and survey sites by month.
http://www.dnr.state.md.us/invasives/didymo_maps.asp

Preventing the spread

The following methods have been recommended to prevent the spread of didymo:

Check: Before leaving the river, remove all obvious clumps of algae and look for hidden clumps. Leave them at the site. If you find clumps later don’t wash them down the drain, treat them with the approved methods below, dry them and put them in a rubbish bin.

Clean: Soak and scrub all items for at least one minute in either hot (60°C) water, a 2% solution of household bleach or a 5% solution of salt, antiseptic hand cleaner or dishwashing detergent.

Dry: If cleaning is not practical (e.g. livestock, pets), after the item is completely dry wait an additional 48 hours before contact or use in any other waterway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didymosphenia_geminata

Note: Wired will continue updating information in an effort to inform our readers. We invite our readers to contact us with any additional factual information that will help us to do so. Thank you

_______________________________________________________________

“Although I don’t have the science to prove it, I suspect the mortality rate of those fish entering the frying pan, is near one hundred percent.” DOC on catch and release…..

_______________________________________________________________

Research

BioDiversity Research Institute

 19 Flaggy Meadow Road

Gorham, Maine 04038

Phone: 207-839-7600

Conservation Maine Water and Soil

Maine Invasive Aquatic and Noxious Weeds Information

USDA Plants of Maine

Maine State Noxious Weeds Information and Links

Public Laws of Maine. 1999. An act to prevent the spread of invasive aquatic plants (20 October 2003). State of Maine.

Other important sources

ME-Department of Conservation

ME-Department of Environmental Protection (Aquatic Plants)

ME-Invasive Plant Publications (University of Maine Extension)

ME-Maine Cranberry Weeds

ME-Maine Department of Agriculture

ME-Maine Natural Areas Program (Invasives)

ME-University of Maine Extension

Maine’s  Introduced Fish Species

Who, What, When, Where and Why

Information Page: 

APPENDIX B

Historical Annotations for Introduced Maine Fishes
(Chronologically Arranged, Most Recent to Past)

Atlantic Salmon

2004 Annual Report of the Maine Atlantic Salmon Commission

2003 Annual Report of the Maine Atlantic Salmon Commission

Federal Listing of Atlantic Salmon Distinct Population Segment

Atlantic salmon conservation plan

Draft recovery plan for the Gulf of Maine distinct population segment of the Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Search by individual watershed:    http://pearl.maine.edu/windows/salmon/index.htm 

Annual reports of the U.S. Atlantic Salmon Assessment         Committee:

• Population structure of Atlantic salmon in Maine with reference to populations from Atlantic Canada . Spidle et al. 2003.
• A Systematic survey of water chemistry for Downeast area rivers.
  K. Johnson and S. Kahl. 2005
• 1. Research Summary
  2. Full Report
• Dennys River Watershed NPS Management Plan.
• Sheepscot River Water Quality Monitoring Stregic Plan.
• Water Quality Monitoring Protocol Manual For Maine Atlantic Salmon Rivers.
• Narraguagas River NPS Watershed Management Plan
• Pleasant River Water Quality Monitoring Plan (2007)
• Water quality summary for Kenduskeag Stream and upper watershed tributaries (2006)
• Water quality summary for the Sheepscot River (2006)
• Ducktrap River tributary study. A summary of field chemistry and temperature logger deployments for 2006

                     Annual reports of the US assessment Committee:

                  http://pearl.maine.edu/windows/salmon/index.htm

Penobscot River Research

                                 ___________________________________

Wind Power Myth v Fact

PUBLICATIONS

   ESA Petition listing Process
US Fish and Wildlife Endangered 
Species Program 

The Process

Petitions are formal requests to list a species as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act.

They require published findings. We (or the National Marine Fisheries Service for most marine species) must make a finding within 90 days of receiving a petition (to the extent practicable) as to whether or not there is “substantial information” indicating that the petitioned listing may be warranted.

If this preliminary finding is positive, a status review is conducted. Within one year of receipt of the petition, we must make a further finding that the listing either is or is not warranted. A positive one-year finding can be incorporated into a proposed listing or, if a prompt proposal is precluded by other listing activities, the proposal may be deferred.

These “warranted but precluded” proposals require subsequent one-year findings on each succeeding anniversary of the petition until either a proposal is undertaken or a “not warranted” finding is made.

Petition received Service review (90 days) Review and information gathering (12 month status review) “Not substantial” information “Substantial” information, listing “may be warranted” Data supports need to list, “Listing is warranted” Publish proposed rule to list in Federal Register……

How A National Park Is Created
National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior
Criteria for Parklands

Throughout the Nation, people are working to conserve natural resources, protect historic sites, and to provide recreational opportunities for a growing population. Many communities also are looking for ways to combine conservation with efforts to attract visitors who will help support the local economy.

The National Park Service is responsible for carefully screening proposals for new park units to assure that only the most outstanding resources are added to the National Park System. Regardless of economic considerations or other factors, a new national park area must meet criteria for national significance, suitability, and feasibility.
Various other management options are also weighed. For those with proposals for consideration, this page explains the criteria applied by the National Park Service in evaluating new park proposals, outlines the study process, and lists some of the other ways to recognize and protect important resources outside of the National Park System.

Qualifications

How are national parks created? What qualities make an area eligible to be a national monument, historic site, recreation area, or other units of the National Park System? These questions are frequently asked by people throughout the country. Some people think a scenic part of their community deserves to be a national park. Others want national recognition for their favorite historic house or geological formation. These sites may deserve to be protected, but how do we decide if action should be taken at the state or local level instead of by the federal government, and if federal action is appropriate what agency should take the lead?

The National Park Service has established criteria for national significance, suitability, feasibility, and management alternatives that help answer these questions. This page presents the criteria and the study process established by Congress and in the National Park Service’s Management Policies. People with suggestions for new parks can use these criteria as a yardstick to see if their proposals are likely to merit further consideration.

Units of the National Park System are managed under mandates differing from those guiding many other Federal, State, and local agencies. The National Park Service is responsible for managing areas to provide for public enjoyment in such a way that will leave resources “unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations”. Since 1872 the National Park System has grown to include almost 400 areas. However, the areas managed by the National Park Service are a small part of the broader system for protecting important places. Addition to the National Park Service is only one of many alternatives, and the National Park Service also operates several programs that help others preserve natural, cultural, and recreational areas outside of the System.

The System continues to evolve, reflecting the progression of history, new understandings of natural systems, and changes in patterns of recreation. Proposals for additions to the National Park System may come from the public, state, and local officials, Indian tribes, members of Congress, or the National Park Service. To be eligible for favorable consideration as a unit of the National Park System, an area must possess nationally significant natural, cultural, or recreational resources; be a suitable and feasible addition to the system; and require direct NPS management instead of protection by some other governmental agency or by the private sector.

National Significance

A proposed unit will be considered nationally significant if it meets all four of the following standards:
• it is an outstanding example of a particular type of resource.

• it possesses exceptional value of quality illustrating or interpreting the natural or cultural themes of our Nation’s heritage.

• it offers superlative opportunities for recreation for public use and enjoyment, or for scientific study.

• it retains a high degree of integrity as a true, accurate, and relatively unspoiled example of the resource.

Resource Evaluation

The following examples of natural and cultural resources are considered in evaluating the significance of a proposal for addition to the National Park System.

Natural Area examples may include:

• an outstanding site that illustrates the characteristics of a landform or biotic area that is still widespread;

• a rare remnant natural landscape or biotic area of a type that was once widespread but is now vanishing due to human settlement and development;

• a landform or biotic area that has always been extremely uncommon in the region or Nation;
• a site that possesses exceptional diversity of ecological components (species, communities, or habitats) or geological features (landforms, observable manifestations of geologic processes);

• a site that contains biotic species or communities whose natural distribution at that location makes them unusual (for example, a relatively large population at the limit of its range or an isolated population);

• a site that harbors a concentrated population of a rare plant or animal species, particularly one officially recognized as threatened or endangered;

• a critical refuge that is necessary for the continued survival of a species;

• a site that contains rare or unusually abundant fossil deposits;

• an area that has outstanding scenic qualities such as dramatic topographic features, unusual contrasts in landforms or vegetation, spectacular vistas, or other special landscape features;

• a site that is an invaluable ecological or geological benchmark due to an extensive and long-term record of research and scientific discovery.
Cultural Areas may be districts, sites, structures, or objects that possess exceptional value or quality in illustrating or interpreting our heritage and that possess a high degree of integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.

Specific examples include:

a resource that is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to and are identified with, or that outstandingly represent the broad national patterns of United States history and from which an understanding and appreciation of those patterns may be gained;

• a resource that is importantly associated with the lives of persons nationally significant in the history of the United States;

• a resource that embodies distinguishing characteristics of an architectural type specimen, exceptionally valuable for study of a period, style, or method of construction, or represents a significant, distinctive and exceptional entity whose components may lack individual distinction;

• a resource that is composed of integral parts of the environment not sufficiently significant by reason of historical association or artistic merit to warrant individual recognition but collectively composes an entity of exceptional historical or artistic significance, or outstandingly commemorates or illustrates a way of life or culture;

• a resource that has yielded or may be likely to yield information of major scientific importance by revealing new cultures, or by shedding light upon periods of occupation over large areas of the United States.

Ordinarily cemeteries, birthplaces, graves of historical figures, properties owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes, structures that have been moved from their original locations, and reconstructed historic buildings and properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years are not considered to be appropriate as additions to the National Park System unless they have transcendent importance, unless they possess inherent architectural or artistic significance, or unless no other site associated with that theme remains.

Many units of the national park system have been established to recognize their important role in providing recreational opportunities. The potential for public use and enjoyment is an important consideration in evaluating potential new additions to the National Park System. However, recreational values are not evaluated independently from the natural and cultural resources that provide the settings for recreational activities.

Suitability and Feasibility

An area that is nationally significant also must meet criteria for suitability and feasibility to qualify as a potential addition to the National Park System. To be suitable for inclusion in the System an area must represent a natural or cultural theme or type of recreational resource that is not already adequately represented in the National Park System or is not comparably represented and protected for public enjoyment by another land-managing entity. Adequacy of representation is determined on a case-by-case basis by comparing the proposed area to other units in the National Park System for differences or similarities in the character, quality, quantity, or combination of resources, and opportunities for public enjoyment.
To be feasible as a new unit of the National Park System an area’s natural systems and/or historic settings must be of sufficient size and appropriate configuration to ensure long-term protection of the resources and to accommodate public use. It must have potential for efficient administration at a reasonable cost. Important feasibility factors include landownership, acquisition costs, access, threats to the resource, and staff or development requirements.

Management Options

Alternatives to National Park Service management might adequately protect resources even if they are significant, suitable, and feasible additions to the System. Studies of potential new park units evaluate management alternatives that may include continued management by state or local governments, Indian tribes, the private sector, or other federal agencies; technical or financial assistance from established programs or special projects; management by others as a designated national natural landmark, a national historic landmark, a national wild and scenic river, a national trail, a biosphere reserve, a state or local park, or some other specially designated and protected area. Alternatives involving other federal agencies include designation of federal lands as wilderness, areas of critical environmental concern, national conservation areas, national recreation areas, marine or estuarine sanctuaries, and national wildlife refuges. Some areas have been recognized by Congress as being affiliated with the National Park System and are managed by others under terms of a cooperative agreement with the National Park Service, but are not “units” of the system. Additions to the National Park System will not usually be recommended if another arrangement can provide adequate protection and opportunity for public enjoyment.

Procedures

Areas are usually added to the National Park System by an act of Congress. However, before Congress decides about creating a new park it needs information about the quality of the resource and whether it meets established criteria. The National Park Service answers such questions by conducting studies that gather basic data about an area to determine its level of significance. If an area meets the standards of national significance, additional information is gathered about its suitability and feasibility as a park unit and alternatives for management and protection. If an area does not meet the standards of national significance, the National Park Service will suggest other appropriate state, local, or private actions. The following summary outlines basic steps in the study process, including opportunities for public involvement, the role of Congress in setting park boundaries and deciding what uses will be allowed in a new park, and other special designations that may be available for resources of state, local, or national significance.

 Study Process

Criteria for parklands are applied by the professional staff of the National Park Service. The first step is usually a reconnaissance survey to collect basic information about a proposal and assess the resource’s significance. If the area appears to have some potential as a unit of the National Park System, Congress will be asked to authorize a detailed study of management options.
The 1998, National Parks Omnibus Management Act established a new process for identifying and authorizing studies of new units. The National Park Service periodically sends a list of study candidates to Congress. Individual members of Congress propose study authorizations, and Congress decides which studies should be conducted. The National Park Service can collect some basic information to determine if an area is a good candidate for study, before a complete study for inclusion in the National Park System is initiated it must be authorized by a specific act of Congress.
Studies are conducted in consultation with other interested federal, state, and local agencies, Indian tribes, and the public. The format for public involvement is determined by the study team considering the type of resource and level of interest in the proposal. The public may be invited to participate through informal contacts, workshops, meetings, and opportunities to review draft documents. At least one public meeting in the vicinity of the study area is required.

Boundaries

Studies of potential new park units discuss various boundary configurations. Selection of a park boundary is often a compromise between the ideal and what is practical considering costs and other factors. The National Park Service also considers the need for boundary adjustments as part of the planning process for existing units of the National Park System. The National Park Service has broad authority to study potential adjustments in the boundaries of existing parks and does not need specific authority from Congress to evaluate boundary adjustments.

Boundary studies are often similar to studies of potential new parks but apply somewhat different criteria. Boundary revisions may be recommended to include significant features or opportunities for public enjoyment related to the purposes of the park, to address operational and management issues such as access and boundary identification along topographic or natural features or roads, or to protect park resources critical to the park’s purposes. Boundary studies discuss management options and whether lands will be feasible to administer considering size, configuration, ownership, costs, and other factors.

A boundary study is usually appropriate only when the resources being considered are directly related to the purposes of an existing unit of the National Park System. Even if a resource is adjacent to an existing unit, it might be considered as a “new area” study if it is not directly related to the purpose and significance of the existing unit. For example, evaluating a prehistoric archeological site next to a civil war battlefield would most likely involve the “new area” criteria rather than the boundary adjustment study process.

Authorizations

Congress decides if an area should be added to the National Park System or if some other action might be appropriate. Congressional committees usually hold hearings on proposed additions to the System and ask the Secretary of the Interior for recommendations. Studies by the National Park Service provide information to help the Secretary develop a position and to help Congress decide what action to take. Study reports prepared by the National Park Service, however, present information about the resources and what management alternatives are most efficient or effective. Recommendations are usually provided in the letter transmitting the study to Congress. Legislation authorizing a new area will explain the purpose of the area and outline any specific directions for additional planning, land acquisition, management, and operations.

Congress has used more than 20 different designations in adding areas to the National Park System. These titles are usually descriptive: seashore, lakeshore, historic site, battlefield, and recreation area, for example. The designations have not always been used consistently, but they reflect certain precedents that have been followed by Congress. The title of national park has traditionally been reserved for the most spectacular natural areas with a wide variety of features. Hunting, mining, and other consumptive uses such as grazing are generally prohibited in National Parks. National Monuments are usually smaller areas established primarily to protect historic, scientific, or natural features containing fewer diverse resources or attractions than national parks. Legislation authorizing National Preserves, Recreation Areas, Seashores, and Lakeshores sometimes allows for a wider range of activities such as oil and gas development, grazing, and hunting subject to certain limits. Despite these differences, all units of the National Park System are managed so as to “leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations”.

Assistance and Evaluation

Besides running the National Park System, the National Park Service also manages or participates in several programs that offer recognition or assistance for areas that do not become units of the System. Resources that are nationally significant may be eligible for special titles or designations while they continue to be managed by states, local governments, other federal agencies, or private owners. Resources of state or local significance also may benefit from technical or financial assistance programs. Some titles, distinctions, and funding sources require action by Congress while others can be provided without site-specific legislation.

Cultural resources of State, local, or national significance may be listed by the National Park Service in the National Register of Historic Places as being worthy of preservation and special consideration in planning for Federal projects. Nationally significant places may be designated National Natural Landmarks or National Historic Landmarks by the Secretary of the Interior. Congress may also authorize financial or technical assistance for nationally significant areas that are affiliated with the National Park System but remain under private, state, or local jurisdiction subject to National Park Service oversight. Resources with international importance may be designated as a world heritage site or biosphere reserve. Rivers may be designated by Congress or the Secretary of the Interior as components of the wild and scenic rivers system. Trails on Federal, State, local or private lands may be designated as national recreation trails by the Secretary of the Interior. Trails meeting standards for scenic and historic quality may be designated by Congress as National Scenic Trails or National Historic Trails.

State and local governments may apply for grants through the National Park Service to support historic preservation and acquisition or development of recreational facilities when funds are available.

The National Park Service can provide technical assistance to State and local governments in conservation of rivers, trails, natural areas, and cultural resources. Other partnerships may be established involving recognition, technical assistance, and coordination with the National Park Service for special resources and programs that are not necessarily of national significance. National Heritage Areas and Corridors are other examples of Congressional recognition that does not involve creating a new unit of the National Park System, and where the role of the National Park Service is primarily to assist State and local initiatives to preserve resources.

Further Information

Questions about the criteria and the study process not answered by this information should be directed to:
 

Division of Park Planning and Special Studies
National Park Service -2510
U.S. Department of the Interior
1849 C Street N.W.
Washington, DC 20240

Inquiries about specific sites or proposals should be directed to the appropriate National Park Service regional office:

Alaska Region
National Park Service
2525 Gambell Street
Room 107
Anchorage, AK 99503-2892

Intermountain Region
National Park Service
12795 West Alameda Parkway
Denver, CO 80225
COLORADO, MONTANA, UTAH, and WYOMING, ARIZONA, NEW MEXICO, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS

Midwest Region
National Park Service
1709 Jackson Street
Omaha, NE 68102
ILLINOIS, INDIANA, IOWA, KANSAS, MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, MISSOURI, NEBRASK, OHIO, and WISCONSIN, NORTH DAKOTA, SOUTH DAKOTA, ARKANSAS

National Capital Region
National Park Service
1100 Ohio Drive, SW
Washington, DC 20242
METROPOLITAN AREA OF WASHINGTON, D.C., with some units in MARYLAND, VIRGINIA, and WEST VIRGINIA

North East Region
National Park Service
200 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
CONNECTICUT, MAINE, MASSACHUSETTS, NEW HAMPSHIRE, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, RHODE ISLAND, and VERMONT, MARYLAND, VIRGINIA, WEST VIRGINIA, DELAWARE

Pacific West Region
National Park Service
1111 Jackson Street
Oakland, CA 94607
IDAHO, OREGON, and WASHINGTON, CALIFORNIA, NEVADA, HAWAII, and PACIFIC TERRITORIES

Southeast Region
National Park Service
100 Alabama Street, SE Atlanta, GA 30303
ALABAMA, FLORIDA, GEORGIA, KENTUCKY, MISSISSIPPI, NORTH CAROLINA, PUERTO RICO, SOUTH CAROLINA, TENNESSEE, and the VIRGIN ISLANDS
  ________________________________________
  EXPERIENCE YOUR AMERICA™

National Park Service
U.S. Department of the Interior
Privacy & Disclaimer
Updated: January, 2003
Author: Brenda Smith
http://www.nps.gov