Identification and Utility of Native Fish Conservation Areas in the Upper Snake River Basin, USA Richard N

Home , Chiselmouth, Shoshone Falls

Identification and Utility of Native Fish Conservation Areas in the Upper Snake River Basin, USA Richard N. Williams* Department of Biology, The College of Idaho 2112 Cleveland Boulevard, Caldwell, Idaho 83605, USA Daniel C. Dauwalter Trout Unlimited 910 Main Street, Suite 342, Boise, Idaho 83702, USA Russell F. Thurow U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station 322 East Front Street, Suite 401, Boise, Idaho 83702, USA David P. Philipp Fisheries Conservation Foundation 302 East Green Street #2102, Champaign, Illinois 61825, USA Jack E. Williams Trout Unlimited 4393 Pioneer Road, Medford, Oregon 97501, USA Chris A. Walser Department of Biology, The College of Idaho 2112 Cleveland Boulevard, Caldwell, Idaho 83605, USA

Abstract.—Native fish conservation areas (NFCAs) are watersheds where management emphasizes proactive conservation and restoration for long- term persistence of native fish assemblages while allowing for compatible uses. Native fish conservation areas are intended to complement traditional fisheries management approaches that are often reactive to population stress- ors and focused on single-species conservation efforts rather than complete assemblages. We identified potential NFCAs in the upper Snake River basin above Hells Canyon Dam using a process that ranked all subwatersheds (Hy- drologic Unit Code 12) and used empirical data on distribution, abundance, and genetics for three native trout species (Bull Trout Salvelinus confluentus, Columbia River Redband Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss gairdneri, and Yellow- stone Cutthroat Trout O. clarkii bouvieri, including the fine-spotted form) and both known occurrences and modeled potential distributions of native nongame fishes. Rankings also incorporated drainage network connectivity and land-protection status (e.g., national park, wilderness). Clusters of high- ranking subwatersheds were identified as potential NFCAs that were then classified according to the presence of nongame fishes identified as species of greatest conservation need in state wildlife action plans. The Pacific Creek

* Corresponding author: [email protected]

135 136 williams et al.

and Goose Creek watersheds ranked high in the upper basin (above Shoshone Falls), and Little Jacks Creek and Squaw Creek ranked high in the lower basin. We then contrasted characteristics of a select few potential NFCAs, discuss the practical implementation and benefits of NFCAs for both fishes and other aquatic species in the upper Snake River basin, examined how the NFCA approach could enhance existing conservation partnerships, and discuss how designating select watersheds as NFCAs can create higher public awareness of the value of native fishes and other aquatic species and their habitats.

Introduction In this paper, we further explore the utility of the NFCA concept by identifying po- Despite decades of allocating substantial re- tential NFCAs and their benefits in the up- sources to conserve freshwater ecosystems, per Snake River basin upstream from Hells North American freshwater fishes continue Canyon Dam. As described in detail below, to decline at a much faster rate than their ter- we used known distributions and abundance restrial counterparts (Master et al. 2000; Jelks of native trout species, known and modeled et al. 2008). Williams (2019, this volume) dis- occurrences of nongame fishes, drainage cusses how current conservation approaches, network connectivity interrupted by large such as the National Wildlife Refuge system, dams, and land-protection status (e.g., na- have been only moderately successful in pro- tional parks, wilderness, wild and scenic riv- tecting riverine ecosystems. Because rivers er) to rank all subwatersheds based on their are linear in nature, approaches based on conservation value and identify potential terrestrial features and land ownership often NFCAs. We then summarize information by fail to consider watershed boundaries funda- potential NFCAs, compare implementation mental to aquatic conservation (Saunders el of NFCAs in example watersheds, and dis- al. 2002; Roux et al. 2008). cuss the utility of the NFCAs in the upper Williams et al. (2011) proposed the Snake River basin. concept of native fish conservation areas (NFCAs) to establish entire watersheds co- operatively managed for native fish com- Upper Snake River Basin munities. As a complement to existing The Snake River flows through a large ba- conservation approaches (e.g., headwater sin draining portions of Wyoming, Idaho, isolation; Novinger and Rahel 2003), NFCAs Utah, Nevada, and Oregon. From its head- emphasize intact and persistent native fish waters in Yellowstone National Park, Wyo- communities and healthy and resilient eco- ming, the river flows southwest, then west, systems while simultaneously striving to and then northwest before cascading north support compatible commercial and recre- through Hells Canyon along the Idaho–Or- ational uses. Dauwalter et al. (2011) explored egon border (Figure 1). the NFCA concept and its application in the The upper Snake River basin lies above upper Colorado River basin in Wyoming the Hells Canyon Complex of three dams through a process that combined known (Brownlee, Oxbow, and Hells Canyon and modeled species distributions, spatial dams), that is, the present upstream limit prioritization analysis, and stakeholder dis- to anadromous salmon and steelhead On- cussions. Others have used the NFCA con- corhynchus mykiss migrations into the cept as an organizing framework for broad- Snake River in Idaho. The upper Snake scale native fish conservation initiatives and River basin is naturally divided by Shosho- associated funding programs (Birdsong et ne Falls, a 65-m waterfall near Twin Falls, al. 2015 and 2019, this volume). Idaho that effectively separates the Snake native fish conservation areas in the upper snake river basin, usa 137

Figure 1. Conservation populations and current distributions of (A) Bull Trout Salvelinus confluentus and Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarkii bouvieri and (B) Columbia River Redband Trout O. mykiss gairdneri and the fine-spotted form of Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout in the upper Snake River basin. 138 williams et al.

River basin into upper and lower basins vertebrates persist in the upper Snake River and is a complete barrier to fish migration basin (IDFG 2017). (Figure 1; Benke and Cushing 2005). The Identification of NFCAs that support at- falls, along with a unique geologic history risk fishes, as well as other aquatic species and past connections with Pleistocene Lake of concern, has the potential to effectively Bonneville, have resulted in a unique histo- integrate diverse conservation and man- ry of species colonization that has strongly agement actions within large watersheds influenced the biogeography of fishes in across extensive landscapes. This includes the Snake River basin (Smith 1978; Camp- the upper Snake River basin, which has a bell et al. 2011). The lower basin (Shoshone diversity of ecosystems, land ownerships, Falls to Hells Canyon Dam) supported 25 and uses, as well as at-risk fishes and other native fish species, of which 5 are extirpat- aquatic species. For example, in the upper ed (Table 1), compared to the upper basin Snake River basin, NFCAs provide an op- (Yellowstone Park headwaters to Shoshone portunity to link the conservation of head- Falls), which supports 14 extant native spe- water Cutthroat Trout populations with cies. Just seven extant species are native to downstream habitats supporting nongame both the upper and lower basins (Table 1; fishes such as Bluehead Sucker, Northern Wallace and Zaroban 2013; Sigler and Zaro- Leatherside Chub, as well as conserva- ban 2018). tion opportunities for other at-risk native Aquatic species management in the aquatic species ranging from amphibians Snake River basin has focused primar- to birds to mammals. Consequently, the ily on native trout. Yellowstone Cutthroat potential benefits of NFCAs are extremely Trout (including the fine-spotted form) diverse. For example, they may be man- are emphasized above Shoshone Falls, with aged to sustain the connectivity of critical Columbia River Redband Trout and Bull habitats at watershed scales. Connectivity Trout emphasized below it (Figure 1). All serves to enhance population persistence are species of greatest conservation need by facilitating natural metapopulation pro- (SGCN) as well as listed species of special cesses (Dunham and Rieman 1999; Hilder- concern in Idaho, Wyoming, Nevada, or brand and Kershner 2000; Compton et al. Oregon. Bull Trout are also federally listed 2008). Simultaneously, NFCAs may provide as a threatened species under the U.S. En- discrete hydrologic units in which native dangered Species Act. Nevertheless, eight fish and other aquatic communities can be other SGCN species occur in the lower isolated, if necessary, from nonnative inva- Snake River basin (such as Leopard Dace, sions (Novinger and Rahel 2003; Fausch et Umatilla Dace, and the Shoshone Sculpin). al. 2009). To be most effective, proposed Four nonsalmonid SGCN species occur NFCAs should be large enough to support in the upper Snake River basin, including natural landscape processes that contrib- Bluehead Sucker and Northern Leatherside ute to the long-term persistence of popula- Chub (Table 1), with only Mountain White- tions (Haak and Williams 2012). Yet NFCAs fish abundantly occurring in both lower and may also be small enough to encourage the upper basins. In addition to fishes, the up- integration of substantive management ac- per Snake River basin provides critical hab- tions by diverse entities ranging from fed- itat for a plethora of other SGCN species. eral to tribal to state to private landholders. In addition to the crayfish, fairy shrimp, Consequently, the establishment of NFCAs pond snails, mud snails, mussels, frogs, may facilitate more efficient and effective and toads listed in Table 1, a wide diversity cooperative actions to benefit a wider as- of SGCN birds, mammals, reptiles, and in- semblage of native aquatic species. native fish conservation areas in the upper snake river basin, usa 139

- 1 5 7 ysis 71 23 53 38 20 36 50 50 50 – – – – eight 0.3 0.001 1.000 0.961 0.99 0.9 0.9 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.97 0.94 0.9 0.8 0.676 w Anal

ed ed ed 36) 52) 96)

o datao o datao o datao o data o curences 2 (3,045) 3 (1,448) 5 (1,310) 3 (1,280) N N N N otal sites) otal 10 (660) 40 (3,047) 90 (1,609) 5 98 (3,002) 39 (1,210) 2 88 (1,4 46 (1,2 101 (1,609) 118 (2,7 12 Extirpat Extirpat Extirpat 2 46 2 6 (t Oc

WY , UT, GN a a a , OR , OR , OR , OR , NV, WY , NV, , WY , , WY , ID ID ID

ID ID

SC WY ID ID

pper pper pper pper pper pper ower ower ower ower ower ower ower ower ower basin Both Both Both Both L L L L L L L L L L L L U U Upper U U U U U in Distribution

pper ower ower

ower

name

Scientific tridentate Entosphenus transmontanus Acipenser alutaceus Acrocheilus Gila atraria Lepidomeda copei caurinus Mylocheilus oregonensis Ptychocheilus balteatus Richardsonius cataractae Rhinichthys osculus Rhinichthys osculus thermalis Rhinichthys R. falcatus R. umatilla ardens Catostomus C. columbianus hubbsi C. c. C. discobolus C.macrocheilus C. platyrhynchus muriei Chasmistes bouvieri clarkii Oncorhynchus gairdneri mykiss O.

er (BHS) er (CSM) ace (SPD) ace steelhead w Trout) (RBT) Trout) w abbreviation) C) -spotted form -spotted elip Sucker (BLS) Sucker elip e Sturgeon (WST) Sturgeon e e River Sucker (SRS) Sucker River e CT) (NL (KWD) (WBLS) (Y (Rainbo fine summer ood River Bridgelip Sucker Bridgelip ood River ountain Sucker (MTS) Sucker ountain orthern Leatherside Chub Leatherside orthern (PMT) Pikeminnow orthern tah Chub (UTC) Chub tah (UTS) Sucker tah matilla Dace (UMD) Dace matilla endall Warm Springs Dace Springs Warm endall ommon name ommon trout redband River olumbia edside Shiner (RSS) Shiner edside argescale Sucker (LSS) Sucker argescale acific Lamprey (PLY) Lamprey acific ongnose Dace (LND) Dace ongnose (LPD) Dace eopard eamouth (PMT) eamouth ellowstone Cutthroat Trout Cutthroat ellowstone C (species P Whit Chiselmouth U N P N R L Speckled D K L U U Bridg W Bluehead Suck L M Snak Y C

Fishes and other taxa native to the upper Snake River basin above Hells Canyon and their general distribution (upper or lower or (upper distribution general their and Canyon Hells above basin River Snake upper the to native taxa other and Fishes

Table 1. Table sur in sites) total (and occurrences of number status, (SCGN) need conservation greatest of species Falls), Shoshone to relative basin vey data, and species weight used to rank subwatersheds. Taxonomic group Fishes 140 williams et al.

ysis 19 22 58 25 – eight 1.0 0.7 0.461 0.5 0.9 0.340 w Anal

ed ed ed 54) 54)

o data o curences 3 (2,628) N otal sites) otal 37 (2,456) 37 39 (1,609) 44 (1

100 (1,3 Extirpat Extirpat Extirpat 2 2 26 (t Oc

, WY , , WY WY , GN

, OR , NV, OR , NV, , NV, OR , NV, , OR , NV, OR , NV, , OR , NV, OR , NV, , NV, OR, WY OR, , NV, , NV, WY , NV, , WY ,

ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID SC ID NV

NV WY ID

pper ower ower ower ower ower ower ower ower ower ower basin Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both L L L L L L L L L L L L U U in Distribution ower

ower

pper

sp.

name

sp. Scientific confluentus Salvelinus tshawytscha Oncorhynchus nerka O. kisutch O. williamsoni Prosopium bairdii Cottus C. beldingii C. confusus C. greenei C. leiopomus connectens Pacifastacus raptor Branchinecta Lanx Stagnicola greggi Colligyrus Pyrgulopsis bruneauensis serpenticola Taylorconcha californiensis Anodonta Gonidea angulata falcata Margaritifera mavortium Ambystoma pipiens Lithobates luteiventris Rana Spea intermontana Anaxyrus boreas A. woodhouseii

(SSC)

species group species Sculpin (ShSC) Sculpin leopard frog leopard Salmon (CHS) Salmon Hot Spring snail Spring Hot abbreviation) y Springs lanx Springs y e River pilose crayfish pilose River e eye Salmon (SES) Salmon eye ornia floater ornia Trout (BLT) Trout Rapids snail Rapids eat Basin spadefoot Basin eat ood River Sculpin (WSC) Sculpin ood River toad oodhouse’s ountain Whitefish (MWF) Whitefish ountain (MSC) Sculpin ottled estern ridged mussel ridged estern pearlshell estern salamander tiger estern toad estern ommon name ommon (COS) Salmon oho frog spotted olumbia ocky Mountain dusky snail dusky Mountain ocky aiute Sculpin (PSC) Sculpin aiute aptor fairy shrimp fairy aptor C (species Bull Chinook Sock C M M P Shorthead Sculpin Shoshone W Snak r Banbur pondsnail R Bruneau Bliss Calif w w w northern C Gr w W

Species listed as SGCN but status not assessed and available at time of analysis. of time at available and assessed not status SGCN but as listed Species Table 1. Continued. Table Taxonomic group Crayfishes Shrimps Snails Mussels Salamander Frogs Toads a native fish conservation areas in the upper snake river basin, usa 141

Methods For each database, only conservation populations were used to define distributions We identified potential NFCAs through a (Figure 1), and abundance was based on the process that ranked all subwatersheds (Hy- midpoint of categorical population abun- drological Unit Code [HUC] 12 watersheds) dances in the database (e.g., 0–35, 35–100, in the upper Snake River basin based on 101–250, 251–625, 625–1,250, and >1,250 fish/ native trout abundance and distribution, km). Conservation populations were defined modeled occurrence probabilities for native as those populations that had less than 10% nongame fishes, differential weighting of genetic introgression or had unique genet- species based on their prevalence, drainage ic, ecological, or behavioral attributes (e.g., network connectivity, and land-protection adfluvial behavior; UDWR 2000; Gresswell status. Rankings were intended to identify 2011; Muhlfeld et al. 2015). Bull Trout distri- watershed-scale areas from the headwa- bution data were obtained from Streamnet, ters downstream where native trout overlap and abundance data from agency databases in distribution with, or occur near, native (see Acknowledgments). nongame fishes and where watershed scale Native nongame fishes data were as- conservation would benefit entire fish as- sembled from fish collections made across semblages. Our analysis did not focus on the upper Snake River basin, and those data identifying unique habitats with endemic were used to develop species probability of fishes (e.g., spring habitats with Shoshone occurrence models. Nongame fishes were Sculpin) or genetically unique subpopula- sampled primarily by electrofishing, but tions or subspecies not currently recognized other methods were also used; for example, as distinct species (e.g., Wood River Bridge- nongame species in Idaho were primarily lip Sucker or Big Lost Mountain Whitefish), sampled during Idaho Department of Fish nor did we focus on large river fishes (e.g., and Game (IDFG) and Idaho Department White Sturgeon) or the main-stem Snake of Environmental Quality electrofishing River because of the difficulty in managing surveys (Meyer et al. 2013) while both elec- large rivers to their headwaters per the NFCA trofishing and minnow traps were used in concept. Clusters of high-ranking subwater- other data sets (Blakney 2012). In all, more sheds (i.e., the top 25%) were aggregated than 3,047 fish collection records were used and characterized based on the native fish to determine species occurrences (see Ac- assemblage, land ownership and protected knowledgments for sources). From these status, watershed size, habitat conditions, collections, presence–absence data were and future threats. used to develop species-specific species dis- Fish data tribution models (random forest; Breiman 2001) where probabilities of occurrence were Many different data sources were used to de- modeled as a function of multiple environ- fine the distribution and abundance of na- mental variables (% converted land, canal tive trout and the occurrence of native non- density, etc.) (see www.tu.org/USRB-multi- game fishes. Distribution and abundance sp-assmt for details). The models for all spe- data for native trout were primarily derived cies, except Leopard Dace, indicated good from rangewide assessment databases. Yel- predictive ability with 10-fold cross-validat- lowstone Cutthroat Trout data (including ed AUC values >0.75. The model for Leop- the fine-spotted form) were based on the ard Dace, a species with only 10 occurrences, 2010 rangewide assessment database (Gress- had the poorest predictive ability (AUC = well 2011), and Columbia River Redband 0.695). Species-specific models were then Trout data were based on the 2012 rangewide used to predict probability of occurrence in assessment database (Muhlfeld et al. 2015). 142 williams et al. perennial stream segments in the National ing subwatersheds minus the value within Hydrography Dataset Plus (NHDPlus; ver- subwatershed i (see Moilanen et al. 2011). sion 1; 1:100,000 scale), with drainage areas The value of V differed by species. For con- larger than 159,100 km2. Predictions were servation populations of Yellowstone Cut- only made in subbasins within the probable throat Trout and Columbia River Redband native ranges sampled by Meyer et al. (2013) Trout (see above), V = the midpoint of fish/ and Gamett (2003). km ranges reported for those populations, V = subwatershed fish per km average (from Watershed rankings fish survey data) for the current distribu- To identify potential NFCAs, every subwa- tion of Bull Trout (a value of 1 was used if tershed in the upper Snake River basin was no abundance data were available), and V = ranked based on native trout distribution the probability of occurrence (range from 0 and abundance data, nongame fish prob- to 1) for all nongame species. Rankings were abilities of occurrence data, river network determined by computing the minimum connectivity, and the percent of subwater- marginal loss across all species for each sub- sheds encumbered in Gap Analysis Program watershed and removing the subwatershed (GAP) Status 1 or 2 protected lands (e.g., with the lowest marginal loss. This process wilderness, national parks; USGS 2011). effectively removed the subwatershed from The analysis was constructed to generally the landscape that resulted in the minimum give higher ranks to clusters of intercon- biodiversity loss, given species weights and nected subwatersheds with abundant trout amount of protected lands in the entire up- populations and high native-fish richness per Snake River basin. The removal process (high biodiversity) within or near protected was repeated iteratively until only one sub- lands. More specifically, subwatershed rank- watershed remained during the last iteration, ings were obtained using the additive-ben- that is, the subwatershed with the highest efit function in Zonation v3.0 conservation marginal loss across all fish species and the planning software to account for river sys- most important subwatershed from a biodi- tem connectivity (Moilanen 2007; Moilanen versity standpoint. The sequence of removal et al. 2008, 2011). Zonation produces a hier- resulted in the subwatershed rank. Trout archical ranking of all subwatersheds (res- data were represented by the spatial hydrog- caled from 0 to 100) based on the minimum raphy framework for each data source, and marginal loss across species-specific input the probability of occurrence for nongame values given species weights (minimum bio- species was attributed on NHDPlus. All data diversity loss) and offset by a cost function: were then converted to a 300-m grid for the analysis. δ =∆1/cw V , iijj∑ j River networks are a nested hierarchy of drainage systems that pose challenges to where δi = the marginal loss across all j spe- conservation of fishes residing in riverine cies for subwatershed i; ci = 100 – % subwa- environments. Consequently, NFCAs are watershed protected, where % protected was tersheds managed in their entirety for native based on protected lands identified as GAP aquatic communities. For this reason, river status 1 or 2 lands; wj = the weight for species network connectivity was used to impart a j based on professional judgment for native penalty on the marginal loss across species trouts or nongame species prevalence, one based on whether a neighboring subwater- measure of rarity, defined by Meyer et al. shed has already been removed during the

(2013)(see Table 1); and ΔVj = is the marginal ranking process (i.e., has a lower rank). The loss of species j values between all remain- penalty specifically translated into a reduc- native fish conservation areas in the upper snake river basin, usa 143

tion in subwatershed value (δi) based on then aggregated into potential NFCAs. We the proportion of subwatersheds that had summarized selected attributes of potential been removed upstream or downstream of NFCAs: mean subwatershed rank, water- the focal subwatershed (see Section 2.4.4 shed size, documented native fish occur- in Moilanen et al. 2011). The same penalties rences, presence of nongame fishes of great- were used for all 21 species and were strong est conservation need, percent of watershed if upstream subwatersheds had already been protected, percent of perennial stream cor- removed and weak if downstream subwa- ridor protected, habitat integrity of subwatersheds had been removed. Although con- tershed, and future security of subwater- nectivity was interrupted by large dams (i.e., shed. The mean rank of subwatersheds in those with reservoirs with ≥4 km2 surface an NFCA was computed as an area-weighted area), smaller dams or other barriers were mean from the subwatershed ranking analy- not used to break connectivity because they sis. Documented species occurrences were are much more capable of being managed determined from rangewide assessment for fish passage. Figure 2 illustrates the ana- databases for native trout and documented lytical process. presence of native nongame species in fisheries surveys. State wildlife action plans Potential native fish conservation areas were used to identify species of greatest Clusters of subwatersheds representing in- conservation need in each state (e.g., IDFG dependent drainage networks within the 2017). Land protection status was based on top 25% of the landscape (rank > 75) were GAP Status 1 and 2 lands (USGS 2011). Sub-

Figure 2. Conceptual model showing data integration for subwatershed ranking analysis. 144 williams et al. watershed habitat integrity was based on Results the Trout Unlimited’s conservation success Watershed rankings from the Zonation index; a composite index ranging from 5 analysis identified entire subbasins where (low integrity) to 25 (high integrity) based all subwatersheds ranked high, as well as on indicators of land protection, watershed individual or small clusters of a few high- connectivity, watershed condition, water ranking subwatersheds (Figure 3). Potential quality, and flow regime, scored each from NFCA watersheds were primarily clustered 1 (low integrity) to 5 (high integrity) (Wil- in headwater areas, both within individual liams et al. 2007). Future security of subwa- river systems (e.g., Boise, Payette, Little tersheds was also based on the Trout Un- Jacks, Little Lost, and Goose drainages) limited’s conservation success index, where and across the Snake River as a whole (e.g., future security is an index ranging from 5 South Fork Snake, Salt, and Blackfoot River (low security) to 25 (high security) based subbasins). The Payette, Boise, South Fork on individuals scores (1–5) for land conver- Snake, Portneuf, and Blackfoot River subba- sion, resource extraction, energy develop- sins represented large clusters of subwater- ment, climate change, and introduced spe- sheds, with ranks exceeding 75 (of a range cies (Williams et al. 2007). from 0 to 100), and representing the top

Figure 3. Subwatershed ranks in the upper Snake River basin based on native trout distributions and abundance, native nongame species occurrence probability, drainage network connectivity, and land-protection status. native fish conservation areas in the upper snake river basin, usa 145

25% of the entire upper Snake River basin. five individual indicators in at least one sub- Smaller aggregations were present in the watershed. While increased levels of private upper Malheur River, upper Jarbidge River, land ownership within a watershed general- Goose Creek, Little Lost River, and Fall Riv- ly resulted in lower habitat-integrity scores, er/Conant Creek (Henrys Fork watershed). of the 11 watersheds with greater than 35% Examples of individual drainages with one private land ownership, habitat integrity or a few high-ranking subwatersheds were scores ranged from 12 in the Portneuf River Little Jacks Creek, Jack Creek (Nevada), In- and Conant Creek (Henry’s Fork subbasin) dian Creek, Cassia Creek, upper Raft River, to 18 in the upper Raft River, where 70% of and Bitch Creek (Figure 4A). the watershed is in private ownership. After the clusters of high-ranking subwa- Likewise, future security of habitats (and tersheds (top 25%) were aggregated, 44 wa- fishes) was variable across the basin (Figure tersheds (range from 56 to 4,344 km2) were 5B). It was typically high in protected areas identified as potential NFCAs based on their and in areas with low human development. high rank and native-species assemblages Within potential NFCAs, future security was (Table 2). All potential NFCAs supported high within several watersheds in national at least one native trout species, and all but parks (scores 21 out of 25), whereas Indian three supported at least one native nongame Creek in Hells Canyon had low future secu- species. Of those, 13 watersheds supported at rity (scores 11 out of 25) because of threats least one nongame species of greatest state from land conversion, resource extraction, conservation need (Table 2; Figure 4A). and climate change (Table 2). Bear Creek in Land status (USGS 2004) within wa- the South Fork Snake River subbasin had a tersheds ranged from 72% private land future security score of 13, despite being 99% (Portneuf River) to nearly the entire upper public lands and a habitat integrity score of watershed protected in public land and na- 22, while Canyon Creek in the Henry’s Fork tional parks (upper Snake River, Cotton- Snake River subbasin, the lower South Fork wood Creek, Fall River; Table 2; Figure 4A). Snake River, and several Payette River tribu- Although stream corridors ranged widely in taries all had future security scores of 12 and level of protection (Figure 4B), land status 13 (Table 2). was not a reliable predictor of habitat integ- Identification of potential NFCAs high- rity or future security. lighted native-trout distributions and abun- Habitat integrity scores ranged from dance coupled with presence of native non- 12 to 25 (Table 2). Habitat integrity in the game species, particularly rare and sensitive upper Snake River basin was low in areas species (i.e., species of greatest conservation with extensive agricultural or urban land need; Figure 4). Potential NFCAs in the low- use and high in upper elevation mountain- er Snake River basin included assemblages ous regions (Figure 5A). Watersheds com- of Columbia River Redband Trout and Bull prised largely of public land (>90%) exhib- Trout and from 1 to 11 nongame species (ex- ited habitat integrity scores ranging from cept for Indian Creek which contained na- the highest possible (25) to 12. In potential tive trout only). Nongame SGCN species (n NFCAs, habitat integrity was high for Pacific = 4) are disproportionally represented in po- Creek in Grand Teton National Park (score tential NFCAs in the upper basin. 25 out of 25). In contrast, despite exhibit- To illustrate differences in the charac- ing species-rich fish assemblages (Table 2), teristics of potential NFCAs, we contrasted habitat integrity was low for the Portneuf the characteristics of three watersheds: the River and Conant Creek (scores of 12 out of Jarbidge River, Goose Creek, and the up- 25) due to low scores (1 out of 5) in each of per Blackfoot River (Figure 6). The Jarbidge 146 williams et al.

Figure 4. (A) Potential native fish conservation areas in the upper Snake River basin with the presence of nongame species of greatest conservation need and (B) pie charts illus- trating the land status of perennial stream corridors. Details of each watershed are found in Table 2. native fish conservation areas in the upper snake river basin, usa 147

5) 3 5 9 1 1 21 21 14 14 14 18 16 16 16 1 20 20 uture (5–2 F security

3 3 3 5 5 7 7 9 1 1 1 12 21 21 16 1 2 2 2 2 24 20 egrity abitat (5–2 H int

1.3 1.9 5.6 2.2 4.4 4.7 5 7 (%) 7 7 8 9 97.6 97.3 97.9 97.6 land 94.1 89.6 90.7 99.2 Public

eam

otected orridor) 0.7 (1.7) 0.2 (0.1) 5.4 (92.3) 5.3 (23.7) 3.4 (88.8) 5.4 (80.2) 0.7 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 100 (100) c 20.5 (8.8) 1 Pr 1 41.6 (10.6) 9 7 36.4 (26.8) 9 99.9 (99.8) (%) (str

9.3 (14.4)

MWF

, MSC, PSC, NLC

MWF , MSC, PSC, MWF , MTS, LND, SPD, SPD, , MTS, LND, , LSS, MTS, UTS, , MTS, UTS, LND,

, BLS, MTS, UTS,

a NLC BHS MWF BHS BHS BHS NLC

C BHS , SPD, RSS, , SPD, RSS, MSC, PSC, , SPD, D, RSS, D, (both), PSC (both), (both), (both), MTS, LND, SPD, RSS, SPD, (both), MTS, LND, (both) SPD, (both), MTS, UTS, LND, (both), (lg.), (both), (both), (both), (both), PSC, MSC, MWF (fine), MTS, LND, MSC, PSC, UT MSC, PSC LND SSC, UT RSS, MSC, PSC LND RSS, MSC, PSC SP CT (both), UTS, LND, SPD, RSS, SPD, (both), UTS, LND, CT YCT Y YCT YCT YCT YCT YCT YCT YCT YCT YCT YCT YCT YCT N

) fishes ative

2 7 2 ea 31 12 59 89 3 4 160 1 28 ar 344 9 894 (km 1,61 atershed 1,396 1,842 1,469 2,309 2,086 W

ean 5.3 4.3 5.8 5.0 7.6 7.9 ank 9 9 9 9 88.7 8 89.5 8 98.7 89.2 97.6 98.8 90.6 90.6 r M (0–100)

Characteristics of potential native fish conservation areas in the upper Snake River basin. Species of greatest conservation

Snak Snak Snak Fork) need shown in bold. R. = River; = Cr. Creek; S. Fk. = South Fork; N. Fk. = North Fork. Cutthroat For Trout Yellowstone (YCT), fine = fine-spotted, lg. = large-spotted, and both fine Table 2. Table (subbasin) Watershed Falls Shoshone Above (S. Fk. Snake) Cr. Pacific R. S. Fk. Snake Upper Fork) R. (Henrys Fall (S. Fk. Fork Buffalo Creek Goose e) (Henrys Cr. Conant (S. Fk. Cr. Cottonwood (S. Fk. Snake) Cr. Spread R. S. Fk. Snake Lower e) Fk. Snake) Cr.(S. McCoy (S. Fk. Snake) Cr. Ditch R. (S. Fk. Ventre Gros R. (S. Fk. Snake) Hoback R. (S. Fk. Snake) Salt e) 148 williams et al.

5) 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 7 7 7 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 21 14 14 16 16 uture (5–2 F security

3 3 5 5 7 9 1 1 1 1 1 12 14 18 18 1 16 16 16 22 22 24 egrity abitat (5–2 H int

7.8 4.8 8.6 6.0 21.6 (%) 7 2 57.1 52.8 30.2 36.9 7 5 97.6 land 80.1 94.7 98.4 98.8 90.1 99.7 Public

eam

otected orridor) 9.0 (1.7) 2.5 (0.1) 0.3 (0.1) 3.5 (59.2) 0.4 (0.1) 0.1 (0.4) 0.1 (0.0) 7.2 (50.0) 0.4 (0.0) 4.9 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 1 c 10.7 (4.0) Pr 4 7 (%) (str

C C

MWF

, MTS, UTS, LND, , MTS, UTS, LND,

a C BHS , BLS, LSS, LND, SPD, SPD, , BLS, LSS, LND,

D, RSS, MSC, PSC, UTC D, , SPD, MSC, SSC , SPD, , BLS, SSC, , BLT (lg.), MTS, LND, SPD, RSS, SPD, MTS, LND, (lg.), RSS, MSC, PSC (both), SPD, SPD, MTS, UTS, LND, (lg.), MSC, PSC, (both), MTS, LND, SPD, MTS, UTS, LND, (lg.), MSC, PSC (both), SPD, SPD, MTS, UTS, LND, (lg.), sculpin PSC, SPD, LND, (lg.), RSS, MSC, UTS, LND, (lg.), (lg.), (lg.), MSC, PSC, (lg.), , MSC, SSC T, BLT T, MSC, PSC RSS, MSC, PSC, UT MWF RSS, MSC, PSC, UT SP RSS, MSC, PSC PSC, UT RSS, NPM, MSC, SSC species YCT YCT YCT YCT BLT YCT YCT YCT YCT YCT YCT YCT RB RBT RBT RBT N

) fishes ative

2 5 5 2 4 9 ea 32 78 58 411 21 16 21 10 160 24 367 ar 267 880 (km 1,1 atershed 1,8 1,528 1,4 1,676 4,344 W

ean 3.3 7.3 5.2 3.4 7.0 7.4 8.7 9.6 4.8 ank 81.6 8 8 7 8 7 7 97.7 84.3 9 98.3 8 7 80.0 86.0 99.9 r M (0–100)

(continued)

Can Table 2. Continued. Table (subbasin) Watershed Falls Shoshone Above R. Raft Upper (S. Fk. Snake) Cr. Bear R. Blackfoot Upper R. (S. Fk. Snake) Greys R. Lost Little R. Blackfoot Lower (S. Fk. Snake) Cr. Big Elk R. Portneuf Cr. Willow Fork) (Henrys Cr. Bitch Fork) (Henrys Cr. Canyon (Raft) Cr. Cassia Falls Shoshone Below Canyon) (Hells Cr. Indian (Bruneau) Cr. Jacks Little (Hells Cr. Brownlee R.) (Payette Cr. Squaw yon) native fish conservation areas in the upper snake river basin, usa 149

5) 3 5 5 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 12 14 14 18 18 16 16 16 16 uture (5–2 F security

3 5 5 5 7 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 21 18 18 18 18 16 16 20 egrity abitat (5–2 H int

3.4 3.5 5.2 5.5 7.2 61.0 (%) 9 9 50.3 8 9 9 76.3 97.3 97.3 land 40.4 88.4 89.6 96.7 Public

eam otected orridor) 7.7 (37.2) 1.0 (0.4) 3.0 (66.1) 3.5 (10.7) 0.2 (0.3) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 9.8 (80.5) c 12.5 (12.3) 1 Pr 3 4 18.8 (26.4) 46.7 (42.5) 7 (%) (str

MWF

MWF MWF

a , SSC, MWF , BLS, LSS, SPD, RSS, , BLS, LSS, SPD, RSS, SPD, , CSM, LND, NPM, , LSS, CSM, LND, SPD, , BLS, LSS, LND, , BLS, LSS, CSM, MTS, RSS, , BLS, LSS, LND, , BLS, LSS, CSM, MTS, MSC, SSC , LND, MWF MWF , SPD, RSS, NPM, MSC, , SPD, RSS, NPM, MSC, , SPD, LSS, SPD, RSS, NPM, MSC, LSS, SPD, , SPD, PSC , SPD, RSS, NPM SPD, , BLS, LND, RSS, PSC , BLS, SPD, , BLT , BLT , BLT , BLT , BLT , BLT , BLT , BLT , BLT

T SSC NPM, MSC MSC, SSC, SSC RSS, NPM, MSC, LND SSC, MSC, SSC, LND SSC, RB RBT, RBT RBT RBT RBT RBT RBT RBT RBT RBT RBT RBT RBT N

) fishes ative

2 3 5 7 6 ea 51 18 33 32 78 5 56 1 1 810 28 6 ar 20 8 886 900 (km 1,166 1,9 atershed 3,1 2,52 W

3.1 ean 5.3 2.3 2.7 7.2 7.5 2.8 8.5 9.7 8.4 ank 9 61.2 7 6 9 7 8 7 9 7 8 86.2 69.2 90.0 r M (0–100)

(continued)

R. (P F able 2. Continued. - integ Habitat (good). 25 to (poor) 5 from range scores Subwatershed index. success conservation Unlimited’s Trout from integrity Habitat See Table 1 for species abbreviations. Native fish occurrence based on project database and not expert knowledge. expert and not database project on based occurrence fish Native abbreviations. species for 1 Table See Future Security from Trout Unlimited’s conservation success index. Subwatershed scores range from 5 (not secure) to 25 (secure). Future 5 25 from secure) to (secure). Future (not range scores index. Subwatershed success conservation Unlimited’s Trout from Security Future security based in indicators of land conversion, resource extraction, energy development, climate change, and introduced species. and introduced change, climate development, energy extraction, resource conversion, of land indicators based in security T (subbasin) Watershed Falls Shoshone Below R. Fk. Payette N. Lower R. Fk. Payette N. Middle R. Payette Fork Middle R. S. Fk. Payette R. Malheur Upper R. S. Fk. Boise (Bruneau) Cr. Willow Boise Fork North/Middle R. (Bruneau) Jarbidge R. Weiser Little Upper R. Deadwood Upper C. (Owyhee) Harrington ayette) (Bruneau) Big Jacks (Salmon Cr. Cottonwood a alls) b c rity based in indicators of riparian condition, watershed connectivity, watershed condition, water quality, and flow regime. flow and quality, water condition, watershed connectivity, watershed condition, ofriparian indicators based in rity 150 williams et al.

Figure 5. Spatial distribution of (A) habitat integrity and (B) future security scores for subwatersheds (Hydrologic Unit Code 12: n = 2079) in the upper Snake River basin above Hells Canyon. Habitat integrity and future security indicators were based on Trout Unlimited’s conservation success index (Williams et al. 2007). native fish conservation areas in the upper snake river basin, usa 151

Figure 6. Land ownership and native trout distributions in the (A) Jarbidge River, (B) Goose Creek, and (C) upper Blackfoot River watersheds. 152 williams et al.

River supports two native trouts, Columbia tions of inland trout have been substantially River Redband Trout and Bull Trout, where- reduced; for example, all inland Cutthroat as the others have only Yellowstone Cut- Trout subspecies occupy less than half of throat Trout. The watersheds ranged in size their historical habitat (Thurow et al. 1997; from 878 to 1,842 km2, but only two, Goose Haak and Williams 2013). Salmon have been Creek and upper Blackfoot River, have natu- extirpated from some rivers (Praggastis and ral downstream extents defined by dams im- Williams 2013), and nongame fishes have ex- pounding reservoirs. The Jarbidge River has perienced declines in abundance and distri- no definitive downstream boundary and is bution in western North America (Brouder connected to downstream rivers (a dam iso- and Scheurer 2007). Habitat conditions are lates the Bruneau River from the Snake River expected to continue to change in the fu- much further downstream). The amount of ture as runoff timing, stream discharge, and public land in the watersheds ranges from water temperatures are altered by climate 56% to 90%, with U.S. Forest Service lands warming (Wenger et al. 2011; Beschta et al. in the headwaters and a mix of Bureau of 2013; Meyer et al. 2014a; Isaak et al. 2015). Land Management and state lands at lower elevations. Perennial stream corridors were Benefits of native fish conservation areas 72–87% public land, except in the upper for native fishes Blackfoot River where 41% of stream kilome- Native fish conservation areas provide both ters were on public land; however, the main a conceptual and formal framework for col- stems of all streams and rivers were large- laborative, watershed-scale conservation ly on private land. Little of the perennial and restoration efforts targeting broader na- streams had formal land protections, except tive fish communities that may include na- in the Jarbidge River where 37% of perennial tive trout in headwaters and native nongame stream kilometers have formal protections species in both headwaters and downstream in wilderness or wild and scenic river desig- areas in western river systems (Williams et nation. Habitat integrity and future security al. 2011). Watershed-scale conservation and for these three watersheds were moderate to restoration can improve instream habitat high, in contrast for example to the future diversity closely linked to fish diversity in security of the South Fork Snake River and the upper Snake River basin (Walrath et al. tributaries, which are lower and threatened 2016). North American Beaver Castor ca- by introduced species (e.g., Rainbow Trout nadensis are increasingly important for re- Oncorhynchus mykiss), climate change storing stream channels incised by livestock (high drought risk), and energy develop- grazing and other impacts. Such efforts can ment (potential hydropower development). be critical for SCGN species like Northern Leatherside Chub that have higher preva- Discussion lence at sites with complex streamflows as- Aquatic habitat in the western United States sociated with beaver dams (Dauwalter and has been degraded by myriad factors, in- Walrath 2018). Stream habitat restoration cluding overgrazing by domestic livestock and increased connectivity at the watershed (Beschta et al. 2013), water withdrawal (Dea- scale are expected to improve current condi- con et al. 2007), oil and gas development tions for native aquatic assemblages and in- (Dauwalter 2013), urbanization (Williams et crease their resiliency to future threats like al. 2007), hydroelectric development (Thu- climate change (Thurow et al. 1997; Zoellick row et al. 2000), and forestry and mining et al. 2005; Isaak et al. 2015). practices (Lee et al. 1997), among other an- We used a quantitative, data-driven ap- thropogenic impacts. In turn, the distribu- proach to identify key locations in the upper native fish conservation areas in the upper snake river basin, usa 153

Snake River basin where watershed-scale res- drainages and the potential for NFCAs in toration efforts will benefit native fish com- several of these same watersheds (Figures 4 munities, such as in Goose Creek, the upper and 6). Blackfoot River, and Conant Creek (Figure For the NFCA approach to function and 4A). Watershed-scale restoration might also assist both the public interest and manage- be a management priority in watersheds that ment agencies’ long-term planning efforts, are juxtaposed to lands currently designated it is essential that NFCAs be identified at a for protection as wild and scenic rivers, wil- scale that is practical and manageable. Ag- derness areas, or national parks because of gregating smaller subwatersheds with com- the additional future security for the water- mon-species assemblages and management sheds and aquatic communities. Examples concerns into larger management units (as of potential NFCA watersheds in designated potential NFCAs) ensures that NFCA des- status include the upper South Fork Snake, ignation will be an effective management Pacific Creek, and Hoback Creek (Table 2; tool (Birdsong et al. 2019). Although our Figure 4A). Ultimately, adoption of these unit of analysis was a subwatershed (~12,000 potential NFCAs as functional NFCAs will ha), our analysis also explicitly accounted require a stakeholder-driven, collaborative for connectivity of adjacent subwatersheds. process ensuring feasibility assessment and This facilitated aggregation into larger wa- implementation (Dauwalter et al. 2011; Bird- tersheds where management considerations song et al. 2015). and actions were likely to be consistent. For Decades ago, Lee et al. (1997) anticipat- example, IDFG manages Yellowstone Cut- ed the need for NFCAs after examining his- throat Trout at the subbasin level (IDFG torical and contemporary distributions of 15 2007), a scale representing a natural way to native salmonid taxa in the interior Colum- aggregate our results into larger units, as we bia River basin and portions of the Klamath illustrate (Figure 4). River and Great Basin. The authors evaluat- Watershed scale NFCAs are also com- ed the native salmonids we examined in this patible with the proposed management study (Columbia River Redband Trout, two strategies of many state and federal natural forms of Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout, Bull resource management plans because they Trout, and Mountain Whitefish; Lee et al. rely on identifying management units based 1997; Thurow et al. 1997). Their work identi- on habitat conditions, genetics, and popula- fied habitat and biodiversity strongholds for tion status. The Idaho Department of Fish native salmonids in the northern Cascades, and Game’s management plan for conserva- the central Idaho mountains, and the Snake tion of Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout (IDFG River headwaters and their connecting river 2007) defines 13 geographic management corridors. Thurow et al. (1997) noted that units addressing abundance, trends, genet- maintaining the integrity of these declin- ics, and an evaluation of existing threats ing native fishes and aquatic systems for the (Meyer et al. 2006). The status of Columbia long term would require a network of well- River Redband Trout populations is summa- connected, high-quality habitats (strong- rized in a similar manner below Shoshone holds) that supported a diverse assemblage Falls (Meyer et al. 2014b). of native species, including a full expression The NFCA concept can also be used of their life histories. Our finer-scaled anal- as an organizational framework for cross- ysis of the upper Snake River basin further partnership collaborations focusing on illuminates areas of diverse, high-quality, strategic restoration of fish habitat. -Sev interconnected habitat in the headwaters eral multiagency partnerships, such as the of the Boise, Payette, and upper Snake River Western Native Trout Initiative (WNTI; 154 williams et al. www.westernnativetrout.org) and the Des- The NFCA concept has also been ap- ert Fish Habitat Partnership (DFHP; www. plied to explore watershed level conserva- desertfhp.org), are collaborative, multi tion and stakeholder partnerships in Colo- agency and multistate partnerships fo- rado and across the southeastern United cused on native trout conservation and res- States. Dauwalter et al. (2011) compared the toration across the western United States distribution of remaining Colorado River and conservation and restoration of habi- Cutthroat Trout O. c. pleuriticus with known tats used by nonsalmonid desert fishes, distributions of three sensitive warmwater respectively. The WNTI and DFHP part- fishes (Roundtail Chub Gila robusta, Blue- nerships commonly collaborate on habitat head Sucker, and Flannelmouth Sucker Ca- restoration projects (Dauwalter et al. 2019, tostomus latipinnis) to identify potential this volume). The NFCA concept provides NFCAs in the upper Colorado River drainag- an umbrella framework guiding expanded es of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Several collaboration of watershed-scale restora- watershed-scale opportunities were identi- tion efforts that could benefit native trout fied, including Muddy Creek in the Little in headwater streams, as well as native, Snake River, where multiple agencies and nongame fishes in downstream, warmer nonprofit groups are working to reconnect main-stem habitats. For example, our up- headwaters with downstream reaches in or- per Snake River analysis informs identifi- der to conserve the entire native fish com- cation of focal watersheds for such cross- munity (Compton et al. 2008). partnership collaboration, planning, and In the southeastern United States, the fundraising (e.g., Dauwalter et al. 2011, 2019; NFCA concept has been proposed as a pre- Haak and Williams 2013). ferred method to protect native stream fish- Native sport fishes such as Cutthroat es. Birdsong et al. (2015) recommended the Trout and black bass Micropterus spp. use of the NFCA concept to protect native have been proposed as key species defining black bass, which are keystone species in NFCAs because they range widely, are rela- southeastern stream systems. Their protec- tively well known compared to many other tion in large, functional watersheds would native stream fishes, and are of primary in- simultaneously help conserve numerous less terest to both recreational anglers and state well-known, native stream fishes in the re- and federal management agencies, yet they gion. Efforts are underway to identify NFCA are relatively sensitive to disturbance (Wil- watersheds for keystone black bass species, liams et al. 2011; Birdsong et al. 2019). Re- including Guadalupe Bass Micropterus tre- storing and reconnecting stream networks culii in the Llano River watershed in cen- has been proposed as a method to conserve tral Texas, Redeye Bass M. coosae in South native trout in the face of climate change by Carolina’s upper Savannah River watershed, creating larger stronghold populations and and Shoal Bass M. cataractae in the Chipola facilitating development of migratory life River watershed in north-central Florida. histories that aid in long-term population persistence (Haak and Williams 2013). Haak Benefits of native fish conservation areas and Williams (2013) describe such efforts for other aquatic species for Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout Oncorhyn- Management focused on resilient water- chus clarkii virginalis, including restoration sheds will also likely benefit other imperiled of 240 km of interconnected habitats in the aquatic species such spotted frogs Rana lu- Rio Costilla area of New Mexico that also teiventris, western ridged mussel Gonidea creates a refuge for other native fishes of the angulata, other diverse SCGN species (Table Rio Grande basin. 1), as well as riparian obligate species such as native fish conservation areas in the upper snake river basin, usa 155 the sage grouse Centrocercus urophasianus (Hand et al. 2018; Birdsong et al. 2019). Rie- that require wet meadow habitat for early man et al. (2000) used a broadscale and juvenile rearing. Such an approach would spatially explicit classification of subbasins engage multiple partners and potentially le- in the northwest to examine opportuni- verage increased funding sources in a more ties and conflicts related to terrestrial and efficient manner to serve a wide diversity of aquatic ecosystem management. Birdsong species (Birdsong et al. 2019). et al. (2019) discuss a 6-year multipartner An example of this multiorganization effort across watersheds in Texas that led to partnership approach was implemented in the development of the Texas Native Fish 2015 on North Carolina’s Little Tennessee Conservation Areas Network. The Texas River (LTR), which became the nation’s first NFCA Network protects 91 freshwater fish- designated NFCA (Harris and Williams 2016; es considered species of greatest conserva- Leslie et al. 2019, this volume). The LTR is an tion need and their associated watersheds important global biological hotspot and is through designation of 20 NFCAs identi- host to a unique assemblage of fish, amphib- fied to preserve the unique Texas freshwa- ians, mollusks, crayfish, and aquatic insects. ter fish diversity. The North Carolina Wildlife Federation Because human disturbance is strong- gathered interested organizations, agencies, ly associated with the condition of both and business to discuss long-term conserva- aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, the com- tion of the LTR. As a result, the LTR Native monality in management goals and oppor- Fish Conservation Partnership formed to tunities challenges managers of multiple assist management of the LTR watershed as disciplines to work together. Spatially ex- an NFCA. The LTR Native Fish Conservation plicit classifications such as NFCAs provides Partnership includes 25 collaborative part- a mechanism for better integrating manage- ners comprising nongovernmental organi- ment. Rieman et al. (2000) suggested that zations, federal and state agencies, the East- such approaches assist integration through ern Band of Cherokee Indians, and several (1) communication among disciplines, (2) private businesses. effective prioritization of limited conservation and restoration resources, and (3) Collaborative benefit of native fish establishing a framework for experimenta- conservation areas tion and demonstration of restoration tech- Addressing specific local and regional niques. Establishing a multidisciplinary and aquatic conservation issues through the multiorganization partnership to support NFCA concept can facilitate important so- NFCAs is a critical element for creating the cioecological perspectives that are key to public and institutional support necessary achieving both biological goals and the so- for more effective, long-term conservation cial and management goals of NFCA part- and restoration of aquatic systems, as dem- nership members (e.g., the Little Tennessee onstrated eloquently in the Little Tennessee River NFCA). Establishing the multistake- River (Leslie et al. 2019) and across the Texas holder partnership, required to support an NFCA Network (Birdsong et al. 2019). NFCA, fosters a collaborative, interdisci- plinary approach necessitating active dia- Acknowledgments logue for sharing values and perspectives. We thank the following individuals for shar- Native fish conservation area collaboration ing Snake River basin fish population data: provides the opportunity for effectively dis- K. Meyer, IDFG; B. Gamett, Salmon-Challis cussing and resolving conflict among user National Forest; D. Miller, Wyoming Game groups, managers, and fisheries biologists and Fish Department; B. Bangs, Oregon 156 williams et al.

Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW); sity: multidisciplinary science for conser- J. Pappani, Idaho Department of Environ- vation. American Fisheries Society, Sym- mental Quality; R. Hughes, U.S. Environ- posium 82, Bethesda, Maryland. mental Protection Agency; E. Keeley, Idaho Birdsong, T. W., G. P. Garrett, B. J. Labay, M. G. State University; J. DeRito, Henrys Fork Bean, P. T. Bean, J. Botros, M. J. Casarez, A. Foundation (HFF)/Trout Unlimited; M. E. Cohen, T. G. Heger, A. Kalmbach, D. A. Lien, Friends of the Teton River; and con- Hendrickson, S. J. Magnelia, K. B. Mayes, tributors to the HFF database: Bureau of M. E. McGarrity, R. McGillicuddy, M. M. Land Management (BLM), U.S. Forest Ser- Parker, and S. Robertson. 2019. Texas Na- tive Fish Conservation Areas Network: vice, Wyoming Game and Fish Department strategic investments in restoration and (WGFD), IDFG, and Friends of the Teton preservation of freshwater fish diversity. River (FTR). We thank those who responded Pages 183–229 in D. C. Dauwalter, T. W. to our survey regarding the characterization Birdsong, and G. P. Garrett, editors. Mul- of NFCAs. We also thank S. Grunder and J. tispecies and watershed approaches to Dillon (IDFG), S. Hoefer and A. Berglund freshwater fish conservation. American (BLM), R. Perkins (ODFW), M. Lien and A. Fisheries Society, Symposium 91, Bethes- Vebeten (FTR), L. Mabey (Caribou-Targhee da, Maryland. National Forest), and D. Miller (WGFD) for Blakney, J. R. 2012. Historical connectivity assisting us in reviewing the data and analy- and contemporary isolation: population ses. Funding for this work was provided by genetic structure of a rare high-desert the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation minnow, the Northern Leatherside Chub and Patagonia’s Environmental Fund and (Lepidomeda copei). Master’s thesis. Idaho World Trout Initiative. State University, Pocatello. Breiman, L. 2001. Random forests. Machine References Learning 45:5–32. Brouder, M. J., and J. A. Scheurer, editors. Benke, A. C. and C. E. Cushing, editors. 2005. 2007. Status, distribution, and conserva- Rivers of North America. Academic Press, tion of native freshwater fishes of western Burlington, Massachusetts. North America. American Fisheries Soci- Beschta, R. L., D. L. Donahue, D. A. DellaSala, ety, Symposium 53, Bethesda, Maryland. J. J. Rhodes, J. R. Karr, M. H. O’Brien, T. Campbell, M. R., C. C. Kozfkay, K. A. Meyer, M. L. Fleischner, C. Deacon Williams. 2013. S. Powell, and R. N. Williams. 2011. Histor- Adapting to climate change on western ical influences of volcanism and glaciation public lands: addressing the ecological ef- in shaping mitochondrial DNA variation fects of domestic, wild, and feral ungulates. and distribution of Yellowstone Cutthroat Environmental Management 51:474–491. Trout across its native range. Transactions Birdsong, T. W., M. S. Allen, J. E. Claussen, G. of the American Fisheries Society 140:91– P. Garrett, T. B. Grabowski, J. Graham, F. 107. Harris, A. Hartzog, D. Hendrickson, R. A. Compton, R. I., W. A. Hubert, F. J. Rahel, M. C. Krause, J. Leitner, J. M. Long, C. K. Metcalf, Quist, and M. R. Bower. 2008. Influences D. P. Phillipp, W. F. Porak, S. Robinson, of fragmentation on three species of na- S. M. Sammons, S. Shaw, J. E. Slaughter, tive warmwater fishes in a Colorado River and M. D. Tringali. 2015. Native Black Bass basin headwater stream system. North Initiative: implementing watershed-scale American Journal of Fisheries Manage- approaches to conservation of endemic ment 28:1733–1743. black bass and other native fishes in the Dauwalter, D. C. 2013. Fish assemblage asso- southern United States. Pages 363–378 in ciations and thresholds with existing and M. D. Tringali, J. M. Long, T. W. Birdsong, projected oil and gas development. Fisher- and M. S. Allen, editors. Black bass diver- ies Management and Ecology 20:289–301. native fish conservation areas in the upper snake river basin, usa 157

Dauwalter, D. C., J. S. Sanderson, J. E. Wil- Haak, A. L., and J. E. Williams. 2012. Spread- liams, and J. R. Sedell. 2011. Identification ing the risk: native trout management in and implementation of native fish conser- a warmer and less-certain future. North vation areas in the upper Colorado River American Journal of Fisheries Manage- basin. Fisheries 36:278–288. ment 32:387–401. Dauwalter, D. C., S. L. Vail-Muse, T. R. Thomp- Haak, A. L., and J. E. Williams. 2013. Using na- son, J. B. Whittier, K. M. Johnson, and M. tive trout restoration to jumpstart fresh- G. Bean. 2019. Partnering on multispecies water conservation planning in the Interi- aquatic assessments to inform efficient or West. Journal of Conservation Planning conservation delivery. Pages 11–32 in D. C. 9:38–52. Dauwalter, T. W. Birdsong, and G. P. Gar- Hand, B. K., C.G. Flint, C. A Frissell, C. C. rett, editors. Multispecies and watershed Muhlfeld, S. P. Devlin, B. P. Kennedy, R. L. approaches to freshwater fish conserva- Crabtree, W. A. McKee, G. Luikart, and J. tion. American Fisheries Society, Sympo- A. Stanford. 2018. A social-ecological per- sium 91, Bethesda, Maryland. spective for riverscape management in the Dauwalter, D. C., and J. D. Walrath. 2018. 2018. Columbia River basin. Frontiers in Ecol- Beaver dams, streamflow complexity, and ogy and Environment 16(S1):S23–S33. the distribution of a rare minnow, Lepi- Harris, F. and R. N. Williams. 2016. Introduc- domeda copei. Ecology of Freshwater Fish ing no. 1: Little Tennessee River basin be- 27:606–616. comes first native fish conservation area. Deacon, J. E., A. E. Williams, C. D. Williams, Flyfisher, spring/summer 2016. and J. E. Williams. 2007. Fueling popula- Hilderbrand, R. H., and J. L. Kershner. 2000. tion growth in Las Vegas: how large-scale Conserving inland Cutthroat Trout in groundwater withdrawal could burn re- small streams: how much stream is gional biodiversity. BioScience 57:688– enough? North American Journal of Fish- 698. eries Management 20:513–520. Dunham, J. B., and B. E. Rieman. 1999. Meta- IDFG (Idaho Department of Fish and Game). population structure of Bull Trout: influ- 2007. Management plan for conservation ences of physical, biotic and geometrical of Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout in Idaho. landscape characteristics. Ecological Ap- Idaho Department of Fish and Game, plications 9:642–655. Technical Report, Boise. Fausch, K. D., B. E. Rieman, J. B. Dunham, M. IDFG (Idaho Department of Fish and Game). K. Young, and D. P. Peterson. 2009. Inva- 2017. Idaho State Wildlife Action Plan, sion versus isolation: trade-offs in manag- 2015. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wild- ing native salmonids with barriers to up- life Service, Region 1, Office of Migratory stream movement. Conservation Biology Birds & State Programs, Wildlife & Sport 23:859–870. Fish Restoration, Portland, Oregon. Gamett, B. L. 2003. A summary: the origin of Isaak, D. J., M. K. Young, D. E. Nagel, D. L. fishes in the Sinks Drainages of- south Horan, and M. C. Groce. 2015. The cold- eastern Idaho. Page 16 in R. W. Van Kirk, water climate shield: delineating refugia J. M. Capurso, and B. L. Gamett, editors. for preserving salmonid fishes through The Sinks symposium: exploring the ori- the 21st century. Global Change Biology gin and management of fishes in the Sinks 21:2540–2553. Drainages of southeastern Idaho. Ameri- Jelks, H. L., S. J. Walsh, S. Contreras-Balderas, can Fisheries Society, Idaho Chapter, E. Díaz-Pardo, N. M. Burkhead, D. A. Hen- Bethesda, Maryland. drickson, J. Lyons, N. E. Mandrak, F. Mc- Gresswell, R. E. 2011. Biology, status, and man- Cormick, J. S. Nelson, S. P. Platania, B. A. agement of the Yellowstone Cutthroat Porter, C. B. Renaud, J. J. Schmitter-Soto, Trout. North American Journal of Fisher- E. B. Taylor, and M. L. Warren. 2008. Con- ies Management 31:782–812. servation status of imperiled North Amer- 158 williams et al.

ican freshwater and diadromous fishes. unifying reserve selection strategies. Bio- Fisheries 33:372–407. logical Conservation 134:571–579. Lee, D. C., J. R. Sedell, B. E. Rieman, R. F. Thu- Moilanen, A., J. Leathwick, and J. Elith. 2008. row, and J. E. Williams. 1997. Broadscale A method for spatial freshwater conser- assessment of aquatic species and habi- vation prioritization. Freshwater Biology tats. Pages 1058–1496 in T. M. Quigley and 53:577–592. S. J. Arbelbide, editors. An assessment Moilanen, A., L. Meller, J. Leppänen, A. Arpo- of ecosystem components in the interior nen, and H. Kujala. 2011. Zonation: spatial Columbia basin and portions of the Klam- conservation planning framework and ath and Great Basins. U.S. Forest Service, software, version 3.0. University of Hel- PNW-GTR-405, Portland, Oregon. sinki, Helsinki, Finland. Leslie, A., E. McCombs, and F. Harris. 2019. Muhlfeld, C. C., S. E. Albeke, S. L. Gunckel, Little Tennessee River Basin Native Fish B. J. Writer, B. B. Shepard, and B. E. May. Conservation Partnership: aquatic conser- 2015. Status and conservation of inte- vation on a landscape scale. Pages 415–430 rior redband trout in the western United in D. C. Dauwalter, T. W. Birdsong, and States. North American Journal of Fisher- G. P. Garrett, editors. Multispecies and ies Management 35:31–53. watershed approaches to freshwater fish Novinger, D. C., and F. J. Rahel. 2003. Isolation conservation. American Fisheries Society, management with artificial barriers as a Symposium 91, Bethesda, Maryland. conservation strategy for Cutthroat Trout Master, L. L., B. A. Stein, L. S. Kutner, and G. in headwater streams. Conservation Biol- A. Hammerson. 2000. Vanishing assets: ogy 17:772–781. conservation status of U.S. species. Pages Praggastis, A., and J. E. Williams. 2013. Salm- 93–118 in B. A. Stein, L. S. Kutner, and S. on’s presence in Nevada’s past. Nevada J. Adams, editors. Precious heritage: the Historical Society Quarterly 56:14–32. status of biodiversity in the United States. Rieman, B. E., D. C. Lee, R. F. Thurow, P. F. Oxford University Press, New York. Hessburg, and J. R. Sedell. 2000. Toward Meyer, K. A., D. J. Schill, and J. A. Lamansky, an integrated classification of ecosystems: Jr. 2006. Status of Yellowstone Cutthroat defining opportunities for managing fish Trout in Idaho. Transactions of the Ameri- and forest health. Environmental Man- can Fisheries Society 135:1329–1347. agement 25:425–444. Meyer, K. A., J. A. Lamansky, Jr., D. J. Schill, Roux, D. J., J. L. Nel, P. J. Ashton, A. R. Deacon, and D. W. Zaroban. 2013. Nongame fish F. C. de Moor, D. Hardwick, L. Hill, C. J. species distribution and habitat associa- Kleynhans, G. A. Maree, J. Moolman, and tions in the Snake River basin of southern R. J. Scholes. 2008. Designing protected Idaho. Western North American Natural- areas to conserve riverine biodiversity: les- ist 73:20–34. sons from a hypothetical redesign of the Meyer, K. A., E. I. Larson, C. L. Sullivan, and Kruger National Park. Biological Conser- B. High. 2014a. Population trends of Yel- vation 141:100–117. lowstone Cutthroat Trout and nonnative Saunders, D. L., J. J. Meeuwig, and A. C. J. Vin- trout in Idaho’s upper Snake River basin. cent. 2002. Freshwater protected areas: Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management strategies for conservation. Conservation 5:227–242. Biology 16:30–41. Meyer, K. A., D. J. Schill, E. R. J. M. Mamer, Sigler, J., and D. Zaroban. 2018. Fishes of Ida- C. C. Kozfkay, and M. R. Campbell. 2014b. ho: a natural history survey. Caxton Press, Status of redband trout in the upper Snake Caldwell, Idaho. River basin of Idaho. North American Jour- Smith, G. R. 1978. Biogeography of intermoun- nal of Fisheries Management 34:507–523. tain fishes. Great Basin Naturalist Mem- Moilanen, A. 2007. Landscape zonation, ben- oirs 2(3):17–42. efit functions and target-based planning: Thurow, R. F., D. C. Lee, and B. E. Rieman. 1997. native fish conservation areas in the upper snake river basin, usa 159

Distribution and status of seven native sal- watershed. Transactions of the American monids in the interior Columbia River ba- Fisheries Society 145:821–834. sin and portions of the Klamath River and Wenger, S. J., D. J. Isaak, C. H. Luce, H. M. Great basins. North American Journal of Neville, K. D. Fausch, J. B. Dunham, D. C. Fisheries Management 17:1094–1110. Dauwalter, M. K. Young, M. M. Elsner, B. E. Thurow, R. F., D. C. Lee, and B. E. Rieman. Rieman, A. F. Hamlet, and J. E. Williams. 2000. Status and distribution of Chinook 2011. Flow regime, temperature, and bi- Salmon and steelhead in the interior Co- otic interactions drive differential declines lumbia River basin and portions of the of trout species under climate change. Klamath River basin. Pages 133–160 in E. Proceedings of the National Academy of Knudsen, C. Steward, D. MacDonald, J. Sciences of the United States of America Williams, and D. Reiser, editors. Sustain- 108:14175–14180. able fisheries management: Pacific salm- Williams, J. E., A. L. Haak, N. G. Gillespie, and on. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. W. T. Colyer. 2007. The conservation suc- UDWR (Utah Division of Wildlife Resources). cess index: synthesizing and communicat- 2000. Cutthroat Trout management: a po- ing salmonid condition and management sition paper. Genetic considerations asso- needs. Fisheries 32:477–492. ciated with Cutthroat Trout management. Williams, J. E., R. N. Williams, R. F. Thurow, UDWR, Publication Number 00-26, Salt L. Elwell, D. P. Philipp, F. A. Harris, J. L. Lake City. Kershner, P. J. Martinez, D. Miller, G. H. USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2004. Land Reeves, C. A. Frissell, and J. R. Sedell. 2011. ownership in western North America, 180 Native fish conservation areas: a vision m. Sage-grouse rangewide conservation for large-scale conservation of native fish assessment. Snake River Field Station, communities. Fisheries 36:267–277. U.S. Geological Survey, Snake River Field Williams, J. E. 2019. Multispecies and water- Station, Boise, Idaho. shed conservation: increasing efficiency USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2011. Protected and effectiveness for native fish conserva- areas database of the United States (PAD- tion. Pages 1–9 in D. C. Dauwalter, T. W. US), version 1.2. U.S. Geological Survey, Birdsong, and G. P. Garrett, editors. Mul- Gap Analysis Program (GAP), Moscow, tispecies and watershed approaches to Idaho. Available: https://gapanalysis.usgs. freshwater fish conservation. American gov/padus/. Fisheries Society, Symposium 91, Bethes- Wallace, R. L. and D. W. Zaroban. 2013. Native da, Maryland. fishes of Idaho. American Fisheries Soci- Zoellick, B. W., D. B. Allen, and B. J. Flatter. ety, Bethesda, Maryland. 2005. A long-term comparison of redband Walrath, J. D., D. C. Dauwalter, and D. Re- trout distribution, density, and size struc- inke. 2016. Influence of stream condition ture in southwestern Idaho. North Ameri- on habitat diversity and fish assemblages can Journal of Fisheries Management in an impaired upper Snake River basin 25:1179–1190.