VOL 35 NO 11 NOVEMBER 2010

Fish NewsNews Legislative Update Update FisheriesFisheriesAmerican Fisheries Society • www.fi sheries.org Journal Highlights Highlights Calendar Jobs CenterCenter

THIRD CALL FOR PAPERS Conserving Peripheral Populations: 2011 ANNUAL MEETING the Values and Risks of Life on the Edge SEATTLE Golden Trout: Perspectives on Restoration and Management

Fisheries • v o l 35 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2010 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 521 Biomark

522 Fisheries • v o l 35 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2010 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g VOL 35 NO 11 NOVEMBER 2010 Fisheries AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY • WWW.FISHERIES.ORG

EDITORIAL / SUBSCRIPTION / CIRCULATION OFFICES 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110 • Bethesda, MD 20814-2199 301/897-8616 • fax 301/897-8096 • main@fi sheries.org The American Fisheries Society (AFS), founded in 1870, is the oldest and largest professional society representing 530 550 fi sheries scientists. The AFS promotes scientifi c research and enlightened management of aquatic resources for optimum use and enjoyment by the public. It also encourages comprehensive education of fi sheries scientists and continuing on-the-job training. Contents

AFS OFFICERS FISHERIES STAFF EDITORS COLUMN: species preservation goes back a long PRESIDENT SENIOR EDITOR SCIENCE EDITORS ways. California’s efforts to preserve the Wayne A. Hubert Ghassan “Gus” N. Rassam Madeleine Hall-Arber 524 PRESIDENT’S HOOK Ken Ashley golden trout began more than a century PRESIDENT ELECT DIRECTOR OF Doug Beard New Frontiers in Fisheries William L. Fisher PUBLICATIONS Howard I. Browman ago in the era of Theodore Roosevelt and Aaron Lerner Mason D. Bryant Management and Ecology: FIRST Ken Currens AFS Leadership in Fisheries Education continue today. VICE PRESIDENT MANAGING EDITOR Andrew H. Fayram John Boreman Sarah G. Fox Edwin P. (Phil) Pister William E. Kelso The education that students are receiving at SECOND PRODUCTION EDITOR Deirdre M. Kimball VICE PRESIDENT Cherie Worth Dennis Lassuy universities may not be matching the needs Robert Hughes Allen Rutherford of agencies focused on traditional sport or COLUMN: ABSTRACT TRANSLATION Jack Williams PAST PRESIDENT Pablo del Monte Lun commercial fi sheries management activities. Donald C. Jackson BOOK REVIEW 554 GUEST DIRECTOR’S LINE EDITORS Is this a problem or not? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Francis Juanes Stewarding Piscicides as Ghassan “Gus” N. Rassam Ben Letcher Wayne A. Hubert Keith Nislow Tools in Fish Management: AFS’s Role in Assuring Future Availability Dues and fees for 2010 are: $80 in North America ($95 elsewhere) for regular members, JOURNAL HIGHLIGHTS: in a Changing World $20 in North America ($30 elsewhere) for student members, and $40 ($50) retired members. 526 TRANSACTIONS OF THE The goals of the Fish Management Chemicals Fees include $19 for Fisheries subscription. AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY Subcommittee are to provide leadership in Nonmember and library subscription rates are $150 ($190). Price per copy: $3.50 member; $6 nonmember. the learning and training of practicing fi shery professionals on the safe, effective and Fisheries (ISSN 0363-2415) is published monthly by the American UPdATE: Fisheries Society; 5410 Grosvenor Lane, prudent use of piscicides and stewardship Suite 110; Bethesda, MD 20814-2199 ©copyright 2010. 528 LEGISLATION AND POLICY Periodicals postage paid at Bethesda, Maryland, and at of piscicides in attaining overall ecosystem an additional mailing offi ce. A copy of Fisheries Guide for Elden Hawkes, Jr. balance. Authors is available from the editor or the AFS website, www. fi sheries.org. If requesting from the managing editor, please Brian Finlayson, Rosalie Schnick, and enclose a stamped, self-addressed envelope with your request. Republication or systematic or multiple reproduction of material FEATURE: Don Skaar in this publication is permitted only under consent or license from the American Fisheries Society. Postmaster: Send address 530 FISHERIES MANAGEMENT changes to Fisheries, American Fisheries Society; 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110; Bethesda, MD 20814-2199. Conserving Peripheral Trout Populations: NEWS: the Values and Risks of Life on the Edge Fisheries is printed on 10% post-consumer recycled 556 AFS UNITS paper with soy-based printing inks. Our characterization of peripheral populations and their losses emphasizes the need for closer evaluation of conservation WRAP UP: Advertising Index priorities and management actions for 558 AFS 140TH ANNUAL MEETING and other fi shes if the Pittsburgh Catches Fisheries, N’at Advanced Telemetry Systems ...... 571 values of peripheral populations are to be American Public Univerisity ...... 557 maintained. Biomark ...... 522 Amy L. Haak, Jack E. Williams, THIRd CALL FOR PAPERS: Emperor Aquatics, Inc...... 556 Helen M. Neville, Daniel C. Dauwalter, 564 AFS 141TH ANNUAL MEETING Floy Tag ...... 568 and Warren T. Colyer Halltech Aquatic Resources, Inc...... 557 Hydroacoustic Technology, Inc...... 572 CALENdAR: Lotek Wireless ...... 567 ESSAY: Northwest Marine Technology, Inc...... 529 568 FISHERIES EVENTS 550 FISHERIES MANAGEMENT RFID ...... 567 O.S. Systems, Inc...... 556 California Golden Trout: ANNOUNCEMENTS: Simon Fraser University ...... 525 Perspectives on Restoration and Smith-Root, Inc...... 527 Management 569 JOB CENTER Sonotronics ...... 567

Tell advertisers you found them through COVER: Packer Duane Rossi moves 55-gallon drums for use in application of piscicides during removal Fisheries! of from the South Fork in Ramshaw Meadow. October 1977. CREDIT: Edwin P. (Phil) Pister. Fisheries • v o l 35 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2010 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 523 The education that students are receiving at universities may not be matching the needs of agencies focused on traditional sport or commercial fisheries management activities. Is this a problem or not?

COLUMN: Wayne A. Hubert AFS President Hubert may be PRESIDENT’S HOOK contacted at [email protected].

New Frontiersin Fisheries Management and Ecology: AFS Leadership in Fisheries Education

Let me tell you a story. It is late March, ice is melting from the lakes and there are hints of green along the shoreline, but the wind is blowing and there is sleet in the air. A 1980s vintage compact pulls into the parking lot of the District Fisheries Office, a large metal building with a small office at one end, a large garage at the other, and a chain-link fence enclosing some boats, camper trailers, and pickup trucks. A young fellow extracts himself from the car and dashes into the office to get out of the wind. There is nobody in the office, but there are signs of life. The computer monitor lights up a desk covered with papers, books, and a half-full coffee cup. The wall behind the desk supports numerous photos of a variety of fish being held by a guy with an appealing smile. Among the photos are four picture frames, one holds a bachelors of science degree in fisheries and wildlife biology from the state university, a second holds a master of science degree from the same school, a third is a certification of a professional fisheries scientist, and a fourth says something about 20 years of service to the state agency.

The door from the garage opens The district biologist says, Tell me, what kinds of things and in walks a middle-aged man in The first thing we need did you do when you went to summer camp? a uniform shirt who says, to do is get ready for our annual trend netting The tech responds, You must be the seasonal starting next week. That They cut that out before I tech. Welcome! The guys means, making sure the big started at the U. at the head shed tell me John boat is ready to go and you’re OK and quite a the gear is up to snuff. You Did you do an internship or have a summer job? communicator. You sure will need to back the big impressed them during the boat into the garage, check The tech responds, interview. the foot grease, grease the Sure did. I had an internship They share a cup of coffee and wheel bearings, charge with the Nature Conservancy exchange pleasantries for about and install the battery, and and helped them with their an hour, mostly reminiscence by fix the trailer lights if they GIS coverages. I worked one summer in the state office the district biologist of his fishing aren’t working. Then, go to of the Fish and Wildlife and hunting experiences on the the lake with the boat and nearby lakes. They learn that they Service where I helped set up make sure it is good-to-go. databases with endangered both hold degrees from the state When you get back, pull out “U” and they chat a little about species information. Another the experimental gill nets the football team. Then the district summer I worked with a grad and trap nets, and make student. I prepared fish tissue biologist asks why the young fellow sure they are clean and for stable isotope analyses and has taken a seasonal job when he mended. Muskrats got into a entered data. has a master’s degree. The tech couple last year and chewed responds that the recession has them up pretty badly. OK? What were the fisheries reduced the availability of jobs and courses you took at the U? he had to take what he could get The young tech looks dumbfounded The tech shuffled in his seat and with the hope of having a foot in and doesn’t know what to say. The answered, the door for a permanent position. district biologist quickly recognizes The chatter eventually turns to the the tech’s distress and changes the reality of life, work. subject. Continued on page 566

524 Fisheries • v o l 35 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2010 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g AFS to use ScholarOne manuscript submission system

As part of the arrangement with our new publishing partner Taylor & Francis, AFS journals will soon switch to ScholarOne Manuscripts for all newly submitted manuscripts. ScholarOne is an adaptable, user-friendly online submission and peer-review database. It allows for rapid submission of original and revised manuscripts, as well as facilitates the review process and internal communication among authors, editors, and reviewers via a web-based platform. It is a market leader in web-based scholarly publishing, which is currently evidenced by statistics of over 13 million registered users, and receives over 100,000 submissions a month world-wide. It can be accessed via any web browser at any time.

Simon Fraser

Fisheries • v o l 35 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2010 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 525 JOURNAL HIGHLIGHTS: TRANSACTIONS OF THE aMERICAN fISHERIES sOCIETY Volume 139, Issue 4 May 2010

To subscribe to AFS journals go to www.fisheries.org and click on Publications/Journals.

Laboratory Evaluation of Two David Fast Age, Growth, Mortality, and Diet Bioenergetics Models for Brown Trout Pages 1014-1028 Composition of Vermilion Snapper from Gregory W. Whitledge, Przemyslaw G. Bajer, [Note] Lack of Angling-Sized Yellow Perch the North-Central Gulf of Mexico and Robert S. Hayward in a Canadian Boreal Lake: Potential Matthew W. Johnson, Sean P. Powers, Crystal Page 929-936 Influences of Growth Rate, Diet, and L. Hightower, and Matthew Kenworthy Genetic Diversity and Variation of Predation by Double-Crested Cormorants Pages 1136-1149 Mitochondrial DNA in Native and Patrick M. Barks, Jennifer L. Doucette, and Overriding Effects of Species-Specific Introduced Bighead Carp Christopher M. Somers Turbidity Thresholds on Hoop-Net Catch Si-Fa Li, Qin-Ling Yang, Jia-Wei Xu, Cheng-Hui Pages 1029-1040 Rates of Native in the Little Wang, Duane C. Chapman, and Guoqing Lu Evaluating the Status and Trends of River, Arizona Pages 937-946 Physical Stream Habitat in Headwater Dennis M. Stone Migratory Urge and Gill Na+,K+-ATPase Streams within the Interior Columbia Pages 1150-1170 Activity of Hatchery-Reared Atlantic River and Upper Missouri River Basins [Feature Article] Summer–Fall Distribution Smolts from the Dennys and Using an Index Approach of Stocks of Immature Sockeye Salmon in Penobscot River Stocks, Maine Robert Al-Chokhachy, Brett B. Roper, and Eric the Bering Sea as Revealed by Single- Randall C. Spencer, Joseph Zydlewski, and K. Archer Nucleotide Polymorphisms Gayle Zydlewski Pages 1041-1060 C. Habicht, L. W. Seeb, K. W. Myers, E. V. Pages 947-956 Habitat Use during Early Life History Farley, and J. E. Seeb Red Snapper Reproductive Biology in the Infers Recovery Needs for Shovelnose Pages 1171-1191 Southern Gulf of Mexico Sturgeon and Pallid Sturgeon in the The Effects of a Surgically Implanted Thierry Brulé, Teresa Colás-Marrufo, Middle Mississippi River Microacoustic Tag on Growth and Esperanza Pérez-Díaz, and Juan Carlos Quinton E. Phelps, Sara J. Tripp, James E. Survival in Subyearling Fall Chinook Sámano-Zapata Garvey, David P. Herzog, David E. Ostendorf, Salmon Pages 957-969 Joseph W. Ridings, Jason W. Crites, and Deborah A. Frost, R. Lynn McComas, and Influence of Body Size and Prey Type on Robert A. Hrabik Pages 1060-1068 Benjamin P. Sandford the Willingness of Age-0 Fish to Forage Pages 1192-1197 under Predation Risk Environmental and Endogenous Factors Joseph J. Parkos III, and David H. Wahl Influencing Emigration in Juvenile Timing of Walleye Spawning as an Pages 970-975 Anadromous Alewives Indicator of Climate Change Kristal N. Schneider, Raymond M. Newman, Avian Piscivores as Vectors for Myxobolus Benjamin I. Gahagan, Katie E. Gherard, and Eric T. Schultz Virginia Card, Sanford Weisberg, and Donald cerebralis in the Greater Yellowstone L. Pereira Ecosystem Pages 10691082 Pages 1198-1196 Todd M. Koel, Billie L. Kerans, Scott C. Barras, [Note] Private Waterfront Householders Katie C. Hanson, and John S. Wood Catch Less per Trip than Other Fishers: Juvenile Salmonid Use of Reconnected Pages 976-988 Results of a Marine Recreational Survey Tidal Freshwater Wetlands in Grays River, Lower Columbia River Basin Behavior and Breeding Success of Wild Julian Ashford, Cynthia Jones, and Lynn G. Curtis Roegner, Earl W. Dawley, Micah and First-Generation Hatchery Male Fegley Spring Chinook Salmon Spawning in an Pages 1083-1090 Russell, Allan Whiting, and David J. Teel Artificial Stream Upper Thermal Limits to Migration in Pages 1211-1132 Steven L. Schroder, Curtis M. Knudsen, Todd Adult Chinook Salmon: Evidence from Relative Abundance, Growth, and N. Pearsons, Todd W. Kassler, Sewall F. Young, the Klamath River Basin Mortality of Five Age-0 Estuarine Fishes Edward P. Beall, and David E. Fast Joshua S. Strange in Relation to Discharge of the Suwannee Pages 989-1003 Pages 1091-1108 River, Florida Effects of Predator–Prey Interactions and Differing Catchability among Lakes: Caleb H. Purtlebaugh, and Micheal S. Allen Benthic Habitat Complexity on Selectivity Influences of Lake Basin Morphology and Pages 1233-1246 of a Foraging Generalist Other Factors on Gill-Net Catchability of Habitat Selection and Abundance of Michael J. Weber, John M. Dettmers, David H. Northern Pike Young-of-Year Smallmouth Bass in North Wahl, and Sergiusz J. Czesny Rodney B. Pierce, Cynthia M. Tomcko, Donald Temperate Lakes Pages 1004-1013 L. Pereira, and David F. Staples Peter James Brown, and Michael Anthony Boz Homing and Spawning Site Selection by Pages 1109-1120 Pages 1247-1260 Supplemented Hatchery- and Natural- Common Carp Distribution, Movements, [Errata] ERRATAPages Origin Yakima River Spring Chinook and Habitat Use in a River Impounded by Salmon Multiple Low-Head Dams Citation. Full Text . PDF (25 KB) | Original Andrew H. Dittman, Darran May, Donald A. Steven E. Butler, and David H. Wahl Article 1 | Original Article 2 Pages Larsen, Mary L. Moser, Mark Johnston, and Pages 1121-1135 Page 1261

526 Fisheries • v o l 35 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2010 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g BIGBIG WINTERWINTER SAVINGSSAVINGS ONON BACKPACKBACKPACK ELECTROFISHERSELECTROFISHERS Announcing our sale on backpack electrofishers and combos. Our advanced LR-24 and versatile LR-20B discounted from November 1st through February 28th.

LR-24 Backpack Electrofisher LR-20B Backpack Electrofisher LR-24: $6,995 - LR-24 Combo: $9,527 LR-20B: $4,995 - LR-20B Combo: $7,527

Combo consists of: Backpack electrofisher, adjustable shoulder harness, 6' 2-piece electrode pole, 11" aluminum electrode ring, rat-tail cathode, two 24v 7ah batteries, one UBC-24 battery charger, wheeled travel and storage case.

ALSO: it’s that time of the year again... From November through February, it’s also time to take advantage of our 10% discount on needed repairs and upgrades. Have your electrofisher ready to go when you need it AND save money! Call our sales team for more info: (360) 573-0202

Make sure to take advantage of both of these great deals!

Smith-Root, Inc.

www.smith-root.com

Fisheries • v o l 35 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2010 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 527 360-573-0202 • [email protected] • 14014 NE Salmon Creek Ave. • Vancouver, WA 98686 USA UPdATE: Elden Hawkes, Jr. LEGISLATION AND POLICY AFS Policy Coordinator Hawkes can be contacted at ehawkes@fi sheries.org.

NOAA Fisheries Service proposes The scientifi c advice was received from the • Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation new sturgeon protections International Council for the Exploration of Commission ($779,985): To conduct NOAA Fisheries Service has proposed that the Sea (ICES) and the Scientifi c, Economic research and develop outreach fi ve populations of Atlantic sturgeon along and Technical Committee for Fisheries materials with Texas partners to assist the US East Coast receive protection under (STECF). in the recovery of smalltooth sawfi sh the federal Act. throughout Florida and the Gulf of The Gulf of Maine population is proposed NOAA Fisheries Service announces Mexico. for listing as threatened, and endangered $12.6 million in grants to states • Hawaii Department of Land and Natural status is proposed for the Chesapeake to support threatened and Resources ($493,761): To reduce Bay, New York Bight, Carolina, and South endangered species recovery shoreline disturbances and nearshore Atlantic populations. Historically, their range NOAA Fisheries Service has announced fi shery interactions (e.g., entanglement included major estuary and river systems $12.6 million in grants through the Protected and hooking) and continue long-term from Labrador to Florida. Because the marine Species Cooperative Conservation Grant range of an individual sturgeon can be very management of Hawaiian monk seals Program to assist 19 states and territories broad regardless of where it originated, and sea turtles. with conservation projects designed to threats along the East Coast can affect fi sh • New York Department of Environmental recover marine mammals, sea turtles, fi sh, from any of these populations. Conservation ($1,325,437): To coral, and other species listed under the The proposed protections stem from a collaborate with Maine, Connecticut, Endangered Species Act. formal status review that was completed for and New Jersey partners in determining Sixteen proposals were chosen from a the Atlantic sturgeon in 2007 by a team of Atlantic sturgeon habitat use and pool of 35 applications. The competitive biologists from NOAA, the US Geological movement throughout the Mid-Atlantic grant program supports management, Survey, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Bight and evaluating spatial strategies to research, and outreach efforts designed The review found that unintended catch of minimize Atlantic sturgeon bycatch. to bring listed species to the point where Atlantic sturgeon in fi sheries, vessel strikes, • Virginia Department of Game and Inland ESA protections are no longer necessary. poor water quality, dams, lack of regulatory Fisheries ($1,425,959): To enhance In addition, the program also supports mechanisms for protecting the fi sh, and conservation and management of sea monitoring efforts for species proposed dredging were the most signifi cant threats to turtles in Chesapeake Bay and Virginia’s the fi sh. It is currently illegal to fi sh for, catch, for listing, recently de-listed species, and ocean waters through collection of or keep Atlantic sturgeon from US waters. candidate species. a comprehensive set of data on the Some of the proposals selected include: life history, health, and abundance of NOAA Fisheries Service is seeking • California Department of Fish and Game comments on the proposed listing resident sea turtle species. ($442,510): To develop and implement through January 4. • Department of Fish and restoration tools (such as captive breeding Comments can be submitted on the Wildlife ($576,668): To collaborate with and release) to recover the critically Federal eRulemaking Portal at www. the Oregon Department of Fish and regulations.gov. endangered white abalone. Wildlife in tracking coast-wide status and • Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife trends of green sturgeon and managing EU proposes no increase in deep ($1,019,486): To determine habitat human caused impacts to the species. sea fishing requirements and migratory pathways • Washington Department of Fish and The European Commission has recently to provide managers with essential Wildlife ($561,579): Working with the proposed not to grant increases in fi shing information to recover Atlantic and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife opportunities for deep-sea fi sh in EU waters shortnose sturgeon in Delaware, New to monitor eulachon smelt abundance and in international waters of the North-East Jersey, and Connecticut. and distribution and evaluate fi shing • Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Atlantic for 2011-2012 until positive trends techniques to reduce smelt bycatch. in the abundance of deep-sea stocks have Commission ($1,432,320): To monitor been properly identifi ed. The proposal for and map threatened acroporid corals More information about Protected 2011 and 2012, based on scientifi c advice, in U.S. waters and enhance coral Species Cooperative Conservation Grants will bring the Total Allowable Catch in line conservation programs with the U.S. can be found at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ with advised precautionary catch levels. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico offi ces. conservation/states/.

528 Fisheries • v o l 35 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2010 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g Northwest Marine Technology, Inc.

Fisheries • v o l 35 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2010 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 529 FEATURE: FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

Conserving Peripheral Trout Populations: the Values and Risks of Life on the Edge

ABSTRACT: Peripheral populations—generally defined as those at the Amy L. Haak, geographic edge of the range—often have increased conservation value due to their potential to maximize within-species biodiversity, retain important evolutionary Jack E. Williams, legacies, and provide the fodder for future adaptation. However, there has been Helen M. Neville, little exploration of their conservation value in aquatic systems. Inland cutthroat Daniel C. Dauwalter, and trout ( clarkii) subspecies provide a unique opportunity to evaluate the distribution of peripheral populations and patterns of persistence across a wide Warren T. Colyer range of environmental conditions. Our assessment analyzed range-wide losses of All of the authors work for Trout peripheral and core populations since the 1800s, and evaluated the likelihood of Unlimited. Haak is the resource persistence for remaining populations of five cutthroat trout subspecies: Bonneville, information director in Boise, . Colorado River, Yellowstone, Rio Grande, and westslope. For all five, we found that She can be contacted at ahaak@ core and peripheral populations have declined substantially, but the amounts of tu.org. Williams is the senior scientist habitat occupied by peripheral populations generally have declined at a greater in Medford, Oregon. Neville and magnitude. The more isolated peripheral populations typically exhibited the Dauwalter are research scientists in greatest declines. Remaining peripheral populations often failed to meet minimum Boise. Colyer is a restoration ecologist persistence criteria. Our characterization of peripheral populations and their losses emphasizes the need for closer evaluation of conservation priorities and in Missoula, . management actions for cutthroat trout and other fishes if the values of peripheral populations are to be maintained. Conservación de poblaciones Introduction The conservation of population periféricas de trucha: diversity is imperative to the conser- vation of species (McElhany et al. valor y riesgo de vivir en los límites 2000; Luck et al. 2003; Gustafson et al. 2007), which has created a need to RESUMEN: las poblaciones periféricas –definidas como aquellas que habitan en prioritize populations deserving man- el borde de la distribución geográfica- han incrementado su valor de conservación agement attention. Whereas there are debido al potencial que tienen con respecto a la maximización de la biodiversidad many aspects of populations to consider, intraespecífica, a que retienen importantes legados evolutivos y a que comprenden the conservation of peripheral popula- materia prima para el proceso adaptativo. No obstante, poco se ha explorado en tions has received increasing attention cuanto a su valor de conservación en ecosistemas acuáticos. La subespecie de la in the conservation biology literature. trucha de agua dulce (Oncorhynchus clarkii) representa una oportunidad única para Peripheral populations can be defined evaluar la distribución de las poblaciones periféricas y patrones de persistencia a generally as those at the geographic edge través de un amplio rango de condiciones ambientales. En la presente evaluación of a species’ range, though their attri- se analiza la pérdida extensiva de poblaciones periféricas y centrales desde 1880 butes can be quite different depending así como también la verosimilitud de persistencia de poblaciones remanentes de on whether they are continuous with, cinco subespecies de la trucha degollada: Bonneville, Río Colorado, Yellowstone, or disjunct from, the rest of the range Río Grande y westslope. En todos los casos se encontró que las poblaciones (Bunnell et al. 2004). From a conserva- centrales y periféricas han declinado sustancialmente pero la cantidad de hábitat tion perspective, peripheral populations ocupado por poblaciones periféricas se ha reducido aún más. Aquellas poblaciones are often assumed to have certain char- periféricas con mayor grado de aislamiento, típicamente presentan las mayores acteristics that may increase their value pérdidas. Con frecuencia, las poblaciones periféricas remanentes no cumplen con for maximizing within-species biodiver- los criterios mínimos de persistencia. Si el objetivo principal es mantener el valor de las poblaciones periféricas, su caracterización y pérdida debieran enfatizar la sity and species persistence. necesidad de contar con evaluaciones precisas de las prioridades de conservación Peripheral populations are generally y acciones de manejo dirigidas a la trucha degollada y a otros peces. more isolated than populations closer to

530 Fisheries • v o l 35 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2010 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g the core of a species range, and are often assumed to occupy mar- conservation needs across these fishes’ ranges at a time of rapid ginal habitat and have lower abundances (but see Sagarin and environmental change. Gaines 2002; Sagarin et al. 2006). As a result, peripheral popu- lations should experience increased genetic drift and selective Methods pressures, which may be expected to cause a suite of unique and potentially adaptive genetic characteristics unlikely to be found Our assessment analyzed range-wide losses of peripheral pop- in larger, more stable populations (Lesica and Allendorf 1995; ulations relative to core populations since the 1800s and evalu- Nielsen et al. 2001). Many peripheral populations also have ated the likelihood of persistence for remaining populations. We had a unique history during recent glacial periods, either being first classified historical populations of Bonneville, Colorado derived from refugia (Nielsen 1999; Hampe and Petit 2005), River, Yellowstone, Rio Grande, and westslope cutthroat trout or acting as the leading edge of colonization following glacial as core, continuous peripheral, or disjunct peripheral using retreats (Taylor et al. 2003). Consequently, it is often argued a standardized rule set based on hydrologic connectivity and that peripheral populations merit higher conservation priority topographic isolation within and among populations. In our because collectively they maximize within-species diversity, approach, core areas have a higher degree of interpopulation retain an important evolutionary legacy, and provide the fod- connectivity and drain into a common river system, whereas der for future adaptation and speciation (Lesica and Allendorf peripheral populations are more disconnected from central river 1995; Nielsen 1999; Nielsen et al. 2001). systems. We then analyzed data from the latest available status Peripheral populations may also become increasingly impor- surveys for each subspecies and compared current distributions tant for species persistence in light of on-going human impacts to historical distributions to document extirpation of each type (e.g., land development and the introduction of nonnative of population. Finally, we analyzed the likelihood of persistence species) as well as in the context of climate change. As air for remaining peripheral populations based on fish abundance, temperatures increase with global climate change, peripheral amount of occupied stream habitat, and habitat patch size. populations farther from the Equator are likely to provide the leading edge for range shifts, and protection of these popula- Defining peripheral populations based on tions and their habitats may provide essential stepping stones as historical distribution species attempt to track their changing environment (Gibson et al. 2009). Populations at the trailing edge of range shifts There are many definitions of peripheral populations but may also be important because they may harbor unique genetic most make a distinction between those that are geographically diversity or adaptations that could be beneficial in a changing marginal (distant from the core of the species’ range) and those climate, such as higher temperature tolerances (Flebbe et al. that are ecologically marginal (occupy a different environment; 2006; Beatty et al. 2008). Thus, there may be a variety of rea- Lesica and Allendorf 1995; Bunnell et al. 2004). Although geo- sons for prioritizing at least some peripheral populations along graphically marginal populations are often ecologically marginal as well, we rely on a spatial definition because of the difficulty in the entire edge of a range, and a general strategy of preserving defining ecological marginality across entire species ranges. populations across the environmental gradients experienced by Peripheral populations also differ based on their spatial rela- a species may be our best bet for maximizing future adaptive tionships with core populations. Lesica and Allendorf (1995) potential (Smith et al. 2001; Moritz 2002). used a continuum of spatial distance from the core to assess the Evaluating conservation needs with respect to peripheral relative conservation value of populations that are more or less populations in fishes is difficult because to date aquatic systems disjunct. Channell and Lomolino (2000a and b) used an index have been highly underrepresented in research on peripheral of centrality to compare populations based on their inclusion in populations (see Hampe and Petit 2005). The inland cutthroat equal area bands within the historical range designating periph- trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii) subspecies of the western United eral and central regions. Bunnell et al. (2004) recognized two States provide a unique opportunity to evaluate the distribution discrete types of peripheral populations: continuous and dis- of core and peripheral populations, reveal patterns of persis- junct. They defined disjunct populations as being isolated from tence across the ranges of multiple subspecies, and provide rare the core such that genetic interactions are precluded, whereas insight into distributional patterns of aquatic fauna. First, they continuous populations occupy the outer edge of a species’ occupy a wide range of environmental conditions across vary- range. Because the aquatic systems on which we focus have dif- ing latitudes and are separated by natural geographic dispersal ferent attributes from the more commonly-referenced terres- barriers (Behnke 1992). Second, they are also confronted with trial systems, we used the classifications described by Bunnell various human impacts and in general are a highly imperiled et al. (2004) but have modified their methods for distinguish- fauna (Young 1995; Behnke 2002). Our objective was to com- ing between disjunct and continuous peripheral populations. pare the distribution and persistence of peripheral populations We used the historical distribution of each subspecies to define within and among five subspecies of cutthroat trout: Bonneville disjunct peripheral populations as those that were not hydro- cutthroat trout (O. c. ), Colorado River cutthroat trout logically connected within the same river basin and therefore (O. c. pleuriticus), Yellowstone cutthroat trout (O. c. bouvieri; with no practical opportunity for gene flow, whereas continuous including the Snake River fine spotted form), Rio Grande cut- peripheral populations were connected hydrologically within throat trout (O. c. virginalis), and westslope cutthroat trout (O. the same river basin but were at the far downstream extent from c. lewisi) (Figure 1). Contrasts in the distribution and persis- the core populations. tence of peripheral and core populations among subspecies of We first identified core populations based on a geographic cutthroat trout could provide insight valuable for prioritizing information systems (GIS) analysis of the connectivity of his-

Fisheries • v o l 35 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2010 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 531 Figure 1. Historical ranges of cutthroat trout subspecies analyzed in this paper.

532 Fisheries • v o l 35 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2010 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g torical populations. Hydrologic networks that were spatially the three groups with highest connectivity were classified as discrete from other systems but internally interconnected were core, whereas the remaining group with the lowest connectivity identified from the historical distribution, then broken into four was further analyzed. classes based on total length of the connected network using a The low connectivity populations were then evaluated to “natural breaks” classification (Jenks 1967). This method identi- determine if they should be considered part of the core popula- fies groupings of stream networks that minimize variance within tions. Figure 2 provides a graphical depiction of our popu- groups and maximize variance among groups. All networks in lation classification. Low connectivity populations within a

Figure 2. Decision tree for determining how historical populations of cutthroat trout were classified as core, continuous peripheral, or disjunct peripheral.

Fisheries • v o l 35 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2010 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 533 sub-basin (4th Hydrologic Unit Code) that contained core because the assessment data used in this study report abun- populations were classified as core if they were topographi- dances only for individuals 150 mm or longer TL, we targeted cally connected (i.e., occurred along the same mountain an approximate census size of 1,250. Densities reported in range) to core populations. Low connectivity populations the assessments were given in ranges, which we categorized within a river basin (2nd Hydrologic Unit Code) containing such that “low” = < 31 fish/km, “moderate” = 31–93 fish/km, core populations were classified as core if they were hydro- “high” > 93 fish/km. Using these categories, populations with logically connected to the main stem river upstream of a “moderate” densities occupying 13.9–27.8 km habitat (see designated core population and drained from the same topo- Hilderbrand and Kershner 2000), or “high” densities occupy- graphic feature (e.g., mountain range) as a core population. ing 9.3–13.9 km stream habitat were considered persistent. If they drained from an isolated mountain range or connected Populations occupying greater than 27.8 km of habitat at to the main stem river at the downstream extent of the core any density were considered persistent, whereas those with they were classified as continuous peripheral. The remaining less than 9.3 km of stream habitat did not meet persistence populations were classified as disjunct peripheral, being low criteria regardless of fish density (Hilderbrand and Kershner connectivity populations with no hydrologic connectivity to 2000). the core. Spatial data on historical distributions, current popula- Results tion extents, and population sizes were taken from the recent range-wide assessments for Bonneville cutthroat trout (May and Albeke 2005 as updated by the Bonneville Cutthroat General distributions and declines Trout Working Group in 2009, pers. comm.), Colorado River cutthroat trout (Hirsch et al. 2006), Yellowstone cutthroat For all subspecies, the majority of historical populations trout (May et al. 2007), westslope cutthroat trout (Shepard (83–91%) were categorized as core, with the remaining pop- et al. 2003), and Rio Grande cutthroat trout (Alves et al. ulations falling in the two peripheral categories except for 2007) with supplements in the Texas portion of the range Bonneville cutthroat trout, for which no populations met our from Garrett and Matlock (1991), and are described in Trout criteria for continuous peripheral (Table 1). We found that Unlimited’s Conservation Success Index (Williams et al. core and peripheral populations of all five cutthroat trout 2007). subspecies have declined substantially since historical times, but the amounts of stream habitat occupied by peripheral Current distribution and persistence of populations generally have declined at a greater magnitude. core and peripheral populations The more isolated disjunct peripheral populations typically exhibited the greatest declines and have been completely Using the above framework, we evaluated the current dis- extirpated in Rio Grande cutthroat trout. The status of west- tribution of populations in each category compared to their slope cutthroat trout populations was better when compared historical distribution to determine the relative magnitude to other subspecies, but even here declines of disjunct periph- of losses in each category. We also examined the likelihood eral populations were nearly twice that of core populations. of persistence for peripheral populations that were classified Bonneville cutthroat trout occur in four geographic as “conservation populations” in the range-wide assessments. areas mostly in Utah: the Bear River, Northern Bonneville, Generally, conservation populations were identified in these Southern Bonneville, and West Desert. For Bonneville cut- range-wide assessments as having sufficient genetic purity throat trout, disjunct peripheral populations historicalally and habitat to provide conservation value (e.g., Alves et al. occurred in the Southern Bonneville outside of the Sevier 2007). Assessments also contained information on popula- River drainage as well as all occupied habitats in the West tion density and extent of occupied habitat of conservation Desert (Figure 3). No populations were classified as continu- populations, which facilitates further analysis of their likely ous peripheral for this subspecies. All historical populations persistence. in the Bear River and Northern Bonneville areas as well as After identifying those peripheral populations receiving those in the Sevier River drainage (Southern Bonneville) conservation population status, we then determined their were classified as core populations. Comparisons to recent likelihood of persistence. Our persistence analysis followed surveys (May and Albeke 2007) show declines of 62% for Hilderbrand and Kershner (2000) for small cutthroat trout habitat occupied by core populations and 91% for habitat streams, and Dunham, and Rieman’s (1999) work on bull occupied by disjunct peripheral populations (Table 1). Only trout (Salvelinus confluentus) for larger rivers or intercon- 124 km of habitat is still occupied by remaining disjunct nected stream systems. We integrated the findings of these peripheral populations (Figure 4). Recent translocations of two studies such that populations occupying both a patch size Bonneville cutthroat trout to streams in the West Desert greater than 5,000 ha and a stream extent of at least 13.9 km area for conservation purposes have provided an additional were considered persistent. Populations occupying less than 71 km of habitat for disjunct peripheral populations, bringing 5,000 ha or less than 13.9 km of habitat required certain the total to 195 km. Populations throughout the Southern combinations of stream habitat availability and population Bonneville have been severely fragmented and isolated, par- density to meet persistence criteria. We generally followed ticularly in the Sevier River drainage, which historically was Hilderbrand and Kershner’s (2000) target of a census size of a relatively intact core system. 2,500 individuals (> 75 mm TL), which is assumed to equate Colorado River cutthroat trout exhibited substantial to an effective population size of 500 spawning adults, but and almost equal declines among all population classes

534 Fisheries • v o l 35 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2010 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g (Table 1). Historically, core populations were prevalent in cal peripheral populations are located in Idaho’s Camas Creek headwater areas of the Upper Green, Yampa, Lower Green, drainage, ’s lower Bighorn drainage, and the Snake Upper Colorado, Gunnison, Dolores, and San Juan basins. River near the Idaho/Utah border (Figure 8). Existing popu- Comparisons between historical distribution and a recent sta- lations of Yellowstone cutthroat trout have been augmented tus review (Hirsch et al. 2006) found substantial declines in somewhat by translocations that have resulted in 909 km of all basins (ca. 90%). Remaining stronghold areas are primar- additional stream habitat, occupied by core and peripheral ily in the Upper Green, Lower Green, and Yampa basins with populations, including disjunct populations in the headwa- very few populations remaining in the San Juan and Dolores ters of the Tongue River. basins. Historically, peripheral populations in most basins All population groups of Rio Grande cutthroat trout have were scattered in lower elevation regions or areas draining declined substantially, including the extirpation of all dis- from isolated mountain ranges, including all populations in junct peripheral populations (Table 1). Historically, disjunct the Lower Colorado (Figure 5). Continuous peripheral popu- peripheral populations were located in isolated portions of lations have declined by 87% and disjunct peripheral popula- the Upper and Lower Pecos River basins in southeastern New tions by 90%, with 440 km of stream habitat remaining for Mexico and western Texas as well as the Caballo geographic disjunct and continuous peripheral populations combined area of the Rio Grande (Figure 9). Remaining peripheral (Figure 6). The only remaining disjunct peripheral popula- populations were classified as continuous peripheral and con- tions are found in the Dolores and Lower Colorado basins. sisted of 89 km of occupied habitat in the Lower Rio Grande Historically, core populations of Yellowstone cutthroat geographic area in (Figure 10). Rio Grande cut- trout were widely distributed in four of the five geographic throat trout have been introduced into 75 km of stream habi- areas inhabited by this subspecies: Bighorn, Yellowstone, tat, which were all classified as core. Upper Snake, and Lower Snake (Figure 7). Peripheral pop- Disjunct peripheral populations of westslope cutthroat trout ulations historically occurred primarily along the northern historically occurred in the Upper Columbia (Washington), and eastern flanks of the Bighorn Mountains in Wyoming John Day (Oregon), and Musselshell (Montana) drainages and Montana, including the Tongue River drainage, and in (Figure 11). Continuous peripheral populations currently the western and southern-most portions of the Lower Snake occur in the Idaho/Washington border area of the Coeur basin, primarily in Idaho. Compared to historical distribu- d’Alene basin and have shown no declines since historical tions, core populations have declined less for Yellowstone times (Figure 12). Historical populations in all remaining cutthroat trout than other subspecies examined except for river drainages were classified as core. Recent assessment data westslope cutthroat trout, but still approximately half the (Shephard et al. 2003) shows substantial disjunct peripheral populations have been extirpated (Table 1). Disjunct periph- population losses in all three areas as well as habitat frag- eral populations have declined by 84% while continuous mentation and isolation of remaining core populations in the peripheral populations declined by 86%. Remaining histori- following drainages: Clark Fork, Marias, Middle Missouri, Upper Missouri, and Madison. Table 1. Classification of historical cutthroat trout populations and the fate of these populations Remaining populations are now since historical (ca. 1850) times. Extent of historical, current, and extirpated populations is given increasingly vulnerable because in km of occupied stream habitat. Introduced populations are classified based on the location of of the amount of habitat lost the donor population. and the location of these areas Historical Current Extirpated Extirpated Introduced Classification outside of the remaining core. (km) (km) (km) (%) (km) Overall, stream habitat occupied Bonneville Cutthroat Trout by core populations decreased by Core 9,497 3,645 5,852 62% 15 approximately 37%, the lowest Continuous peripheral 0 0 0 – 0 decline of any subspecies exam- Disjunct peripheral 1,376 124 1,252 91% 71 ined, while disjunct peripheral Colorado River Cutthroat Trout populations declined by 73% Core 30,784 4,426 26,358 86% 0 (Table 1). Continuous peripheral 2,490 329 2,161 87% 0 Disjunct peripheral 1,107 111 996 90% 0 Persistence of Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout remaining peripheral Core 22,539 11,202 11,337 50% 791 Continuous peripheral 3,365 473 2,892 86% 31 populations Disjunct peripheral 1,341 216 1,124 84% 87 The percentages of conserva- Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout tion populations meeting per- Core 9,901 1,138 8,762 89% 75 sistence criteria varied widely Continuous peripheral 527 89 438 83% 0 among subspecies, and between Disjunct peripheral 417 0 417 100% 0 continuous and disjunct periph- Westslope Cutthroat Trout eral populations (Table 2). Core 83,341 52,221 31,120 37% 0 Only 6 disjunct populations Continuous peripheral 382 382 0 0% 0 of Yellowstone cutthroat trout Disjunct peripheral 7,242 1,981 5,260 73% 0 remain, but four of these (67%)

Fisheries • v o l 35 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2010 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 535 Figure 3. Historical distribution of core and peripheral populations of Bonneville cutthroat trout.

536 Fisheries • v o l 35 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2010 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g Figure 4. Current distribution of core and peripheral populations of Bonneville cutthroat trout. Note that some populations (shown by dotted lines) have been introduced into previously unoccupied stream segments but still within their historical range.

Fisheries • v o l 35 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2010 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 537 Figure 5. Historical distribution of core and peripheral populations of Colorado River cutthroat trout.

538 Fisheries • v o l 35 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2010 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g Figure 6. Current distribution of core and peripheral populations of Colorado River cutthroat trout.

Fisheries • v o l 35 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2010 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 539 were considered persistent. The majority of continuous were characterized as persistent, and these populations occupy peripheral populations have also been extirpated already for an average of less than 13 km of stream habitat. The disjunct this subspecies (Table 1), and though 32 remain, only 6 (19%) peripheral populations that were not considered persistent were considered persistent. Both continuous and disjunct averaged only 4 km of occupied habitat. peripheral populations classified as persistent for Yellowstone cutthroat trout occupy, on average, more than 50 km of Discussion streams, considerably more than persistent peripheral popu- lations of other subspecies (Table 2). For westslope cutthroat The conservation value of an individual population is trout, all remaining peripheral conservation populations are generally gauged in the context of a species’ abundance, and disjunct, and 21/43 (49%) of these met persistence criteria. its genetic, ecological, and life history diversity range-wide Fifty percent of remaining continuous peripheral populations (e.g., Gustafson et al. 2007). Without full knowledge of these of Colorado River cutthroat trout were considered to be characteristics across all populations, however, alternative persistent, but less than 2/14 (14%) of disjunct populations means are needed for evaluating conservation priorities. were. All disjunct peripheral populations of Rio Grande cut- Identifying peripheral populations may be a useful approach throat trout have been extirpated. Of 8 remaining continu- for assigning conservation values because of their assumed ous peripheral Rio Grande cutthroat trout populations, only contribution to within-species biodiversity, arising from often 2 (25%) were considered persistent. Historically, Bonneville unique evolutionary histories and the potential for distinct cutthroat trout had no continuous peripheral populations. Of future evolutionary trajectories (Lesica and Allendorf 1995; remaining disjunct peripheral populations, only 5/39 (13%) Taylor et al. 2003). Assessing conservation needs relative

Figure 7. Historical distribution of core and peripheral populations of Yellowstone cutthroat trout.

540 Fisheries • v o l 35 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2010 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g to range distributions in fishes is especially difficult because colonization histories (Hedrick 1999; Nielsen 1999; Taylor peripheral populations of fishes have received relatively lit- et al. 2003), emphasizing their potential for disproportion- tle attention in the scientific literature. In a recent review, ate contributions to within-species biodiversity. In our study, Hampe and Petit (2005) found that only 4% of studies on the majority of peripheral populations have already been lost, peripheral populations were focused on aquatic systems, and many of those remaining have a low likelihood of per- and we know of no studies that have attempted explicitly sistence because of small population sizes and limited habitat to define peripheral populations (sensu Schwartz et al. 2003; extents, due primarily to habitat degradation and fragmenta- Channell and Lomolino 2000a, b) in trout. Identification of tion (Horan et al. 2000). Particularly in light of rapid envi- peripheral populations using geography, as done herein, can ronmental change, remaining peripheral populations may serve as a useful first step to characterizing potential histori- merit special focus to conserve potentially unique genetic cal within-subspecies diversity and understanding what may characteristics and/or adaptations such as higher tempera- have already been lost, to guide future conservation needs ture tolerance (Nielsen 1999; Taylor et al. 2003; Flebbe et (e.g., Gustafson et al. 2007). al. 2006; Rieman et al. 2007; Beatty et al. 2008) and for con- In general, inland cutthroat trout are characterized by high sideration for introduction efforts in the event that current among-population genetic diversity (Loudenslager and Gall habitats are eliminated. 1980; Allendorf and Leary 1988; Neville et al. 2006; Peacock The spatial patterns associated with peripheral populations and Kirchoff 2007). This differentiation may be magnified and their losses differ even among subspecies of cutthroat trout in peripheral populations with distinct population dynam- and will need to be evaluated on a subspecies-by-subspecies ics (e.g., population fluctuations and/or bottlenecks) and basis. The cutthroat trout subspecies we evaluated had vary-

Figure 8. Current distribution of core and peripheral populations of Yellowstone cutthroat trout. Note that some populations (shown by dotted lines) have been introduced into previously unoccupied stream segments but still within their historical range.

Fisheries • v o l 35 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2010 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 541 Figure 9. Historical distribution of core and peripheral populations of Rio Grande cutthroat trout.

542 Fisheries • v o l 35 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2010 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g Figure 10. Current distribution of core and peripheral populations of Rio Grande cutthroat trout. Note that some populations (shown by dotted lines) have been introduced into previously unoccupied stream segments but still within their historical range.

Fisheries • v o l 35 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2010 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 543 ing patterns in terms of the proportion, geographic distribu- contrasting spatial patterns among subspecies (sensu Sagarin tion, and magnitude of extirpation of peripheral populations and Gaines 2002) suggest that simple rules for classifying related to latitude and hydrologic boundaries, but peripheral peripheral populations and identifying patterns of population populations of all subspecies had high magnitudes of decline loss based solely on range margins do not apply here, and relative to core populations. Bonneville, Colorado, and Rio that core-peripheral population designations and associated Grande cutthroat trout historical distributions extended inferences about conservation value need to be considered south to warmer latitudes where suitable habitats are primar- on a case-by-case basis. However, despite spatial differences ily associated with isolated mountain ranges that were occu- among subspecies, the magnitude of loss of peripheral popula- pied by disjunct peripheral populations. Most of these have tions across all subspecies is noteworthy. now been extirpated or have low likelihood of persistence. In Our results regarding losses of peripheral populations are contrast, the westslope and Yellowstone cutthroat trout have clearly dependent on our approach to defining peripheral the northern-most ranges and tended to have peripheral pop- versus core populations. The aquatic systems on which we ulations on the eastern and western extent of their distribu- focus have different attributes from the more commonly-ref- tion, because their distributions centered on core areas of the erenced terrestrial systems in that physical connectivity and Rocky Mountains and are naturally constrained to the south opportunities for dispersal among populations are constrained by drainage basin boundaries. Likewise, patterns of loss were by river systems, which originate in high-elevation mountain also not consistent geographically; westslope and Yellowstone ranges and can drain towards or away from the center of the cutthroat trout ranges have contracted to the center of their range. This makes defining the “core” and “periphery” com- distribution, Bonneville and Rio Grande cutthroat trout dis- plex, and not necessarily related to the geographic center tributions are contracting to the north, and the Colorado or edge of the range. We based our definition on hydrologic River cutthroat trout distribution is contracting to the north and topographic connectivity in the hopes of maximizing the and the higher elevations of the Colorado River Basin. These likelihood that the regions we defined as core versus periph-

Figure 11. Historical distribution of core and peripheral populations of westslope cutthroat trout.

544 Fisheries • v o l 35 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2010 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g eral historically supported trout populations with different well that prioritizing peripheral populations for conservation dispersal patterns and levels of population connectivity. is not without controversy, and often in the related literature Intuitively, populations occupying isolated stream networks the attributes of peripheral populations are broadly assumed that infiltrate completely into historical lake beds (e.g., West but empirically untested. For instance, some have argued that Desert Bonneville cutthroat populations; Figure 13) are eas- the reduced abundance, and therefore greater extirpation risk, ily classified as disjunct peripheral populations. Classifying of these populations means they should not be considered as continuous peripheral populations can be more tenuous, but viable components of biodiversity because scarce resources these populations may still have different ecological and may be wasted on trying to conserve them (see discussion in genetic characteristics than truly core populations (Bunnell Bunnell et al. 2004 and Hampe and Petit 2005). Yet periph- et al. 2004). Factors such as elevation (Angers et al. 1999), eral populations do not always show reduced abundances habitat heterogeneity (Fausch et al. 2002), and natural bar- (see Sagarin and Gaines 2002; Sagarin et al. 2006) and many riers (Costello et al. 2003; Taylor et al. 2003; Wofford et al. peripheral populations have persisted through major climatic 2005; Neville et al. 2006) can also isolate and differentiate shifts, founder events, and extreme selective pressures, and in trout populations even within what we consider to be core this sense have already withstood the test of time and demon- habitats. strated remarkable long-term viability (Nielsen 1999; Bunnell Similarly, our criteria for persistence were necessarily et al. 2004; Hampe and Petit 2005; Antunes et al. 2006). The coarse due to the nature of available data, and in some cases somewhat opposing theoretical expectations regarding the may not capture the true probability of persistence in terms genetic characteristics of these populations also make it diffi- of the complicated demographic, genetic, and environmental cult to assign conservation value consistently. From one per- factors that promote or reduce persistence (e.g., Hilderbrand spective, the assumed attributes of populations in peripheral, and Kershner 2000). Therefore, in many cases our estimates marginal habitats (small, fragmented, unstable, swamped by of persistence may be optimistic. It is important to note as gene flow from the core) are thought to constrain their abil-

Figure 12. Current distribution of core and peripheral populations of westslope cutthroat trout.

Fisheries • v o l 35 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2010 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 545 ity to adapt to local environments – possibly a primary reason are in greatest need of management attention. For example, why range limits exist where there are no barriers to dispersal peripheral populations that fall far below persistence thresh- (Kirkpatrick and Barton 1997; Kawecki 2008). At the same olds and/or are in high-risk areas for climate change-driven time, others argue that the frequent population bottlenecks disturbance (Rieman et al. 2007; Williams et al. 2009) should and founder events experienced by small fragmented popu- receive initial attention. Declines of remaining peripheral lations at the edge of species’ ranges can set the stage for populations are not likely to be consistent across all river the fixation of beneficial alleles and genetic reorganization basins or geographic areas. Yet to maximize within-species events that would be unlikely in larger, more stable popu- biodiversity, it is important to conserve at least some mini- lations experiencing weaker selection pressures (Lesica and mum number of populations across all river basins. Rieman Allendorf 1995; Nielsen et al. 2001). et al. (2007) recommended that five populations meeting As with many things in ecology, it is likely that the evo- persistence thresholds be maintained in each subbasin (4th lutionary and conservation value of peripheral populations is Code Hydrologic Unit) for long-term conservation of bull partially context-dependent (sensu Stockwell et al. 2003), and trout. Because of natural limitations on available habitat in population-specific information such as abundance, ecologi- some of the more arid regions occupied by peripheral popula- cal uniqueness, genetic characteristics, and levels of migra- tions, this goal may not be realistic or even possible in areas tion should be evaluated before making conservation and such as the West Desert for Bonneville cutthroat trout, or the management decisions for these populations. However, both San Juan Basin for Colorado River cutthroat trout. In these theory and empirical data would suggest these populations instances, it is advisable to maintain as many populations as should be characterized by high levels of among-population possible given restrictions on available habitat. Even if habi- differentiation and potentially unique genetic variants, and tat cannot be expanded, restoring the quality and extent of therefore collectively represent a disproportionate amount riparian zones and thermal refugia may help buffer stream of within-subspecies diversity. The oft-cited tenet of conser- systems from disturbance and on-going impacts of climate vation “save all the pieces” (Leopold 1949) would argue for change (Seavy et al. 2009). In general, larger populations and careful consideration of their conservation value, particularly those in higher quality and more heterogeneous stream sys- in light of an uncertain future where maintaining diversity tems are more likely to survive prolonged drought, flooding, and adaptive potential will be critical for long-term viability. or wildfire in their watersheds (Dunham et al. 2002, 2003; We hope that our geographical characterization of periph- Neville et al. 2009). eral populations and their losses will emphasize the need for More frequent monitoring will aid in the conservation closer evaluation of conservation priorities for peripheral of peripheral populations (Dauwalter et al. 2009). Because populations in inland cutthroat trout and other fishes. of their small geographic extent, many peripheral popula- tions are vulnerable to disturbance, including relatively Management implications small increases in stressors. Frequent monitoring can help with the early detection of detrimental physical or biological Our study indicates that additional management actions changes. Although usually somewhat isolated and removed may need to be directed towards peripheral native trout pop- from hydrologic connections that would facilitate non-native ulations. Of course, the results of broad-scale assessments, species invasion, if introduction does occur in peripheral including ours, should be augmented with finer-scale stream habitats, a non-native species could quickly spread through and population data to inform management decisions, but our the system, and there is growing concern that such invasions results may be useful in identifying those populations that may be facilitated by climate change (Fausch 2008). Initial

Table 2. Number of peripheral populations and their cumulative stream habitat that meet or fail to meet persistence criteria. The populations reported here include only those considered to be “conservation populations” within historically occupied habitat as defined by state fish and wildlife agencies. This includes introduced populations that are considered to be “conservation populations.”

Cutthroat subspecies Peripheral cassification Persistent populations Non-persistent populations Number of Stream habitat Number of Stream habitat populations (km) populations (km) Bonneville Disjunct 5 62 34 132 Continuous 0 0 0 0 Colorado River Disjunct 2 35 12 45 Continuous 5 78 5 41 Yellowstone Disjunct 4 209 2 7 Continuous 6 305 26 147 Rio Grande Disjunct 0 0 0 0 Continuous 2 34 6 33 Westslope Disjunct 21 748 22 114 Continuous 0 0 0 0

546 Fisheries • v o l 35 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2010 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g Figure 13. Peripheral populations of Bonneville cutthroat trout persist in small streams draining Utah’s Deep Creek Mountains along the western edge of the subspecies’ range. (Photos: Warren Colyer and Amy Harig)

genetic assessments are needed for many peripheral popula- range. In general, translocations should only occur between tions to understand their genetic distinctiveness, “health,” habitats in the same river basin or geographic area. In some and conservation needs (Dunham et al. 1999). If collected instances, a lack of sufficient available habitat within the over time, genetic data can be an efficient and effective way same river basin or geographic area may make translocations to monitor changes in factors such as effective population problematic: Harig and Fausch (2002) found that a mini- size, inbreeding, or hybridization (Schwartz et al. 2006). mum watershed area of 14.7 km2 is likely needed for a suc- Translocations of native trout from peripheral popula- cessful translocation, and Hilderbrand and Kershner’s (2000) tions into new or former habitat could provide conservation minimum stream habitat threshold of 9.3 km for long-term benefits, but are often unsuccessful (Harig and Fausch 2002) persistence is another useful guideline for gauging necessary and are not without risk. Translocating fish into novel habi- amounts of habitat for cutthroat trout. Meeting population tat spreads the risk of for that species, and may size criteria for long-term population persistence may be dif- put other species at risk (Ricciardi and Simberloff 2009) and ficult and managers should not underestimate risks associated establish a new evolutionary trajectory for the translocated population when compared to the original donor popula- with small population sizes (Traill et al. 2009). tions (Stockwell and Leberg 2002; Stockwell et al. 2003). Conservation of peripheral populations will help preserve Differential selection and founder effects are common when remaining genetic, life history, and evolutionary diversity establishing new populations from a small number of individ- within native trout. Retaining within-species biodiversity to uals (Wilcox and Martin 2006; Yamamoto et al. 2006). These allow for adaptation to fringe areas, small habitats, and harsh risks can be minimized if translocations are repeated over conditions should provide a substantial evolutionary advan- time (if not detrimental to the source population) and if fish tage during periods of rapid environmental change, which are are moved between similar habitats within their historical likely to characterize the future of coldwater fishes.

Fisheries • v o l 35 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2010 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 547 Dunham, J. B., and B. E. Rieman. 1999. Metapopulation structure Acknowledgments of : influences of physical, biotic, and geometrical land- scape characteristics. Ecological Applications 9:642-655. The authors thank the Bonneville Cutthroat Trout Working Dunham, J. B., M. Peacock, C. R. Tracy, J. Nielsen, and Group for providing updated 2009 population status G. L. Vinyard. 1999. Assessing extinction risk: integrat- information for that subspecies. We would also like to thank ing genetic information. Conservation Ecology. Available at: Gary Garrett of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department ww.ecologyandsociety.org/vol3/iss1/art2/. for assisting with mapping the historical distribution of Rio Dunham, J. B., B. E. Rieman, and J. T. Peterson. 2002. Patch- Grande cutthroat trout in Texas. Matt Mayfield and Sabrina based models of species occurrence: lessons from salmonid fishes in streams. Pages 327-334 in J. M. Scott, P. J. Heglund, M. L. Beus kindly prepared the figures. We also appreciate reviews Morrison, J .B. Haufler, M. G. Raphael, W. A. Wall, and F. B. of the manuscript by Jeff Kershner, Craig Stockwell, Justin Samson, eds. Predicting species occurrences: issues of scale and Fisher, Sujan Henkanaththegedara, Brandon Kowalsk, accuracy. Island Press, Covelo, California. David Mushet, Kevin Purcell, Patricia Flebbe, and an Dunham, J. B., K. A. Young, R. E. Gresswell, and B. E. Rieman. anonymous reviewer. 2003. Effects of fire on fish populations: landscape perspectives on persistence of native fishes and nonnative fish invasions. Forest Ecology and Management 178(1-2):183-196. References Fausch, K. D., C. E. Torgersen, C. V. Baxter, and H. W. Li. 2002. Landscapes to riverscapes: bridging the gap between research Allendorf, F. W., and R. F. Leary. 1988. Conservation and distri- and conservation of stream fishes. BioScience 52(6):483-498. bution of genetic variation in a polytypic species, the cutthroat Fausch, K. D. 2008. A paradox of trout invasions in North America. trout. Conservation Biology 2(2):170-184. Biological Invasions 10:685-701. Alves, J. E., et al. 2007. Range-wide status of Rio Grande cut- Flebbe, P. A., L. D. Roghair, and J. L. Bruggink. 2006. Spatial throat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki virginalis), 2007. Rio Grande modeling to project southern Appalachian trout distribution Cutthroat Trout Conservation Team, Colorado Division of in a warmer climate. Transactions of the American Fisheries Wildlife, Denver. Society 135:1371-1382. Angers, B., P. Magnan, M. Plante, and L. Bernatchez. 1999. Garrett, G. P., and G. C. Matlock. 1991. Rio Grande cutthroat Canonical correspondence analysis for estimating spatial and trout in Texas. Texas Journal of Science 43(4):405-410. environmental effects on microsatellite gene diversity in brook Gibson, S. Y., R. C. Van der Marel, and B. M. Starzomski. 2009. charr (Salvelinus fontinalis). Molecular Ecology 8(6):1043-1053. Climate change and conservation of leading-edge peripheral Antunes, A., R. Faria, W. E. Johnson, R. Guyomard, and P. populations. Conservation Biology 23(6):1369-1373. Alexandrino. 2006. Life on the edge: the long-term persis- tence and contrasting spatial genetic structure of distinct brown Gustafson, R. G., R. S. Waples, J. M. Myers, L. A. Weitkamp, trout life histories at their ecological limits. Journal of Heridity G. J. Bryant, O. W. Johnson, and J. J. Hard. 2007. Pacific 97:193-205. salmon : quantifying loss and remaining diversity. Beatty, G. E., P. M. McEvoy, O. Sweeney, and J. Provan. 2008. Conservation Biology 21:1009-1020. Range-edge effects promote clonal growth in peripheral popu- Hampe, A., and R. J. Petit. 2005. Conserving biodiversity under lations of the one-sided wintergreen Orthilia secunda. Diversity climate change: the rear edge matters. Ecology Letters 8:461- and Distributions 14(3):546-555. 467. Behnke, R. J. 1992. Native trout of western North America. Harig, A. L., and K. D. Fausch. 2002. Minimum habitat require- American Fisheries Society Monograph 6, Bethesda, Maryland. ments for establishing translocated cutthroat trout populations. _____. 2002. Trout and salmon of North America. Free Press, New Ecological Applications 12:535-551. York Hedrick, P. 1999. Perspective: highly variable loci and their inter- Bunnell, F. L., R. W. Campbell, and K. A. Squires. 2004. pretation in evolution and conservation. Evolution 53(2):313- Conservation priorities for peripheral species: the example of 318. British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Hilderbrand, R. H., and J. L. Kershner. 2000. Conserving inland Sciences 34:2240-2247. cutthroat trout in small streams: how much habitat is enough? Channell, R., and M. V. Lomolino. 2000a. Dynamic biogeography North American Journal of Fisheries Management 20:513-520. and conservation of endangered species. Nature 403:84-86. Hirsch, C. L., S. E. Albeke, and T. P. Nesler. 2006. Range-wide _____. 2000b. Trajectories to extinction: spatial dynamics of the status of Colorado River cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii contraction of geographical ranges. Journal of Biogeography pleuriticus): 2005. Colorado River Cutthroat Trout Conservation 27:169–179. Team, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne. Costello, A. B., T. E. Down, S. M. Pollard, C. J. Pacas, and Horan, D. L., J. L. Kershner, C. P. Hawkins, and T. A. Crowl. E. B. Taylor. 2003. The influence of history and contemporary 2000. Effects of habitat area and complexity on Colorado River stream hydrology on the evolution of genetic diversity within cutthroat trout density in Unita Mountain streams. Transactions species: an examination of microsatellite DNA variation in bull of the American Fisheries Society 129:1250-1263. trout, Salvelinus confluentus (Pisces: ). Evolution Jenks, G. F. 1967. The data model concept in statistical mapping. 57(2):328-344. International Yearbook of Cartography 7:186-190. Dauwalter, D. C., F. J. Rahel, and K. G. Gerow. 2009. Temporal Kawecki, T. J. 2008. Adaptation to marginal habitats. Annual variation in trout populations: implications for monitoring and Review of Ecology and Systematics 39:321–342. trend detection. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society Kirkpatrick, M., and N. H. Barton. 1997. Evolution of a species’ 138:38–51. range. The American Naturalist 150(1):1-23.

548 Fisheries • v o l 35 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2010 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g Leopold, A. 1949. A sand county almanac. Oxford University Schwartz, M. K., L. S. Mills, Y. Ortega, L. F. Ruggiero, and F. W. Press, New York. Allendorf. 2003. Landscape location affects genetic variation of Lesica, P., and F. W. Allendorf. 1995. When are peripheral popu- Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis). Molecular Ecology 12(7):1807. lations valuable for conservation? Conservation Biology 9:753- Schwartz, M. K., G. Luikart, and R. S. Waples. 2006. Genetic 760. monitoring as a promising tool for conservation and manage- Loudenslager, E. J., and G. A. E. Gall. 1980. Geographic patterns ment. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 22(1):25-33. of protein variation and subspeciation in cutthroat trout, Seavy, N. E., T. Gardali, G. H. Golet, F. T. Griggs, C. A. Howell, clarki. Systematic Zoology 9:27-42. Luck, G. W., G. C. Daily, and P. R. Ehrlich. 2003. Population R. Kelsey, S. I. Small, J. H. Viers, and J. F. Weigand. 2009. diversity and ecosystem services. Trends in Ecology and Why climate change makes riparian restoration more impor- Evolution 18:331-336. tant than ever: recommendations for practice and research. May, B. E., and S. Albeke. 2005. Rangewide status of Bonneville Ecological Restoration 27:330-338. cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki utah): 2004. Utah Division Shephard, B. B., B. E. May, W. Urie and the Westslope Cutthroat of Wildlife Resources, Publication 05-02, Salt Lake City. Trout Interagency Conservation Team. 2003. Status of May, B. E., S. E. Albeke, and T. Horton. 2007. Range-wide sta- westslope cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi) in the tus assessment for Yellowstone cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus United States: 2002. Westslope Cutthroat Trout Interagency clarkii bouvieri): 2006. Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout Interagency Conservation Team, Boise, Idaho. Coordination Group, Helena, Montana. Smith, T. B., S. Kark, C. J. Schneider, and R. K. Wayne. 2001. McElhany, P., M. H. Ruckelshaus, M. J. Ford, T. C. Wainwright, Biodiversity hotspots and beyond: the need for preserving and E. P. Bjorkstedt. 2000. Viable salmonid populations and the recovery of evolutionarily significant units. U.S. environmental transitions. Trends in Ecology and Evolution Department of Commerce NOAA Technical Memorandum 16(8):431. NMFS-NWFSC-42. Stockwell, C. A., and P. L. Leberg. 2002. Ecological genetics Moritz, C. 2002. Strategies to protect biological diversity and and the translocation of native fishes: emerging environmental the evolutionary processes that sustain it. Systematic Biology approaches. Western North American Naturalist 62:32-38. 51(2):238-254. Stockwell, C. A., A. P. Hendry, and M. T. Kinnison. 2003. Neville, H. M., J. B. Dunham, and M. M. Peacock. 2006. Contemporary evolution meets conservation biology. Trends in Landscape attributes and life history variability shape genetic Ecology and Evolution 18:94-101. structure of trout populations in a stream network. Landscape Taylor, E. B., M. D. Stamford, and J. S. Baxter. 2003. Population Ecology 21:901-916. subdivision in westslope cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki Neville, H., J. Dunham, A. Rosenberger, J. Umek, and B. Nelson. lewisi) at the northern periphery of its range: evolutionary 2009. Influences of wildfire, habitat size, and connectivity on inferences and conservation implications. Molecular Ecology trout in headwater streams revealed by patterns of genetic diver- sity. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 138:1314- 12:2609-2622. 1327. Traill, L. W., B. W. Brook, R. R. Frankham, and C. J. A. Nielsen, J. L. 1999. The evolutionary history of steelhead Bradshaw. 2009. Pragmatic population viability targets in a rap- (Oncorhynchus mykiss) along the US Pacific Coast: developing idly changing world. Biological Conservation 143:28-34. a conservation strategy using genetic diversity. ICES Journal of Wilcox, J. L., and A. P. Martin. 2006. The devil’s in the details: Marine Science 56:449-458. genetic and phenotypic divergence between artificial and native Nielsen, J. L., J. M. Scott, and J. L. Aycrigg. 2001. Endangered populations of the endangered pupfish Cyprinodon ( diabolis). species and peripheral populations: cause for conservation. Conservation 9:316-321. Endangered Species Update 18:194-197. Williams, J. E., A. L. Haak, N. G. Gillespie, and W. T. Colyer. Peacock, M. M., and V. Kirchoff. 2007. Analysis of genetic varia- 2007. The Conservation Success Index: synthesizing and com- tion and population genetic structure in Lahontan cutthroat municating salmonid condition and management need. Fisheries trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii henshawi) extant populations. Final Report submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Reno, 32(10):477-492. . Williams, J. E., A. L. Haak, H. M. Neville, and W. T. Colyer. Ricciardi, A., and D. Simberloff. 2009. Assisted colonization is not 2009. Potential consequences of climate change to persistence a viable conservation strategy. Trends in Ecology and Evolution of cutthroat trout populations. North American Journal of 24(5):248-253. Fisheries Management 29:533-548. Rieman, B. E., D. Isaak, S. Adams, D. Horan, D. Nagel, C. Luce, Wofford, J. E. B., R. E. Gresswell, and M. A. Banks. 2005. and D. Myers. 2007. Anticipated climate warming effects on Influence of barriers to movement on within-watershed genetic bull trout habitats and populations across the Interior Columbia variation of coastal cutthroat trout. Ecological Applications River Basin. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 15(2):628-637. 136:1552-1565. Yamamoto, S., K. Maekawa, T. Tamate, I. Koizumi, K. Hasegawa, Sagarin, R. D., and S. D. Gaines. 2002. The ‘abundant centre’ and H. Kubota. 2006. Genetic evaluation of translocation in distribution: to what extent is it a biogeographical rule? Ecology Letters 5:137-147. artificially isolated populations of white-spotted charr Salvelinus( Sagarin, R. D., S. D. Gaines, and B. Gaylord. 2006. Moving leucomaenis). Fisheries Research 78:352-358. beyond assumptions to understand abundance distributions Young, M. K., ed. 1995. Conservation assessment for inland cut- across the ranges of species. Trends in Ecology and Evolution throat trout. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report 21:524-530. RM-GTR-256.

Fisheries • v o l 35 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2010 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 549 Fish species preservation goes back a long ways. California’s efforts to preserve the golden trout began more than a century ago in the era of Theodore Roosevelt and continues today.

ESSAY: FISHERIES MANAGEMENT E dwin P. (P hil ) P ister California Golden Trout: Perspectives on Restoration and Management

Bowers, dispatched biologist Barton Warren Background Evermann of the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries Even back more than 100 years ago there to make a field assessment of the situation. were those rare individuals who expressed Evermann began his major study of the area in concern about possible extinctions! It seems 1904, and published in 1906 (Evermann 1906) fitting that California, often referred to as the his classic paper: “The Golden Trout of the Golden State, should have as its state fish the Southern High Sierras.” Suggested management magnificent golden trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss principles (artificial propagation, bag limits, aguabonita. Originally described in 1892 by etc.) are still in use today by the California ichthyologist and Stanford University President Department of Fish and Game. Evermann saw David Starr Jordan, the golden trout—and their what molecular geneticists later confirmed, fragility throughout their native waters in the and described four forms of this native fish, Edwin P. (Phil) Pister upper Kern River drainage—were noted early aligning them morphologically with the areas in their history and were among the first fishes from which they were collected: Salmo roosevelti Pister is retired from the for which conservation measures were proposed. from Golden Trout (Volcano) Creek, Salmo California Department of Fish Stewart Edward White (1904) brought the aguabonita from nearby South Fork of the Kern and Game, and is executive matter to the attention of his friend President secretary of the Desert Fishes Theodore Roosevelt, noting the relative ease River, Salmo whitei (named in recognition of Council in Bishop, California. with which trout could be caught by anglers Stewart Edward White) from the Little Kern He can be contacted at and presumably brought to extinction. In his River, and Salmo gilberti, the Kern River rainbow [email protected]. 1904 novel The Mountains, White wrote of from which the other forms no doubt evolved the problems faced by the golden trout on following isolation by major volcanic eruptions California’s Kern Plateau. and topographic change in that area thousands For those who wish to learn Roosevelt shared White’s concern and, of years ago. More recent taxonomic studies more about this restoration through U.S. Fish Commissioner George M. now place salmonids within this group under project:

The entire 122 page paper, including appendices and the aquatic insect study as Appendix 1, is available in PDF form on the California Department of Fish and Game website (www. dfg.ca.gov) under “Document Library.” Once there, simply type in “golden trout—Pister.” A limited number of hard copies are still available for those who may be interested by contacting me directly at the e-mail address above. Title of the paper is “Restoration of the California Golden Trout in the , Kern Plateau, Tulare County, California,1966–2004, with Reference to .” Golden trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss aguabonita.

550 Fisheries • v o l 35 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2010 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g the Oncorhynchus, rather than Salmo (Stearley and Smith (e.g. 208 L [55-gallon] drums, nets, chemicals, live cages, electrofishing 1993). gear, batteries, and other heavy equipment). In later years this type of backcountry work was necessarily relegated to packstock. In earlier years, The physical situation fish could be restocked by helicopter. Under wilderness regulations, packstock now remain our only alternative for distribution. In order to fully comprehend the magnitude of fishery recovery efforts, the reader must be aware of the physical circumstance and The initial problem location of the golden trout native range. California’s extends for about 643 km (400 miles), essentially from north to south, Sometime during the mid-1900s an invasion of brown trout (Salmo along the eastern portion of the state. The Kern Plateau, home of trutta) and an equally insidious golden trout x hybrid into the golden trout, lies at the extreme southern end of this range, just the South Fork Kern River, unbeknownst to us, was rapidly eradicating south of Mount Whitney, the highest peak in the contiguous 48 states and contaminating golden trout within much of its evolutionary area. at 4,418 m (14,496’) elevation. From Mount Whitney the Sierra When I first learned of this in 1969, I noted in some areas of the South gradually tapers off to the south. Golden trout country ranges from Fork Kern River that brown trout outnumbered golden trout by nearly about 3.353 m (11,000’) to 2,438 m (8,000’) in its lower areas and 100 to 1. These goldens were rapidly approaching extinction and, now is encompassed primarily within the without our intervention, would soon have become extinct. of the . The Kern River and its tributaries drain southward and westerly off the Sierra, historically flowing into nearby The remedy Tulare Lake and in extremely wet years northerly through California’s Central Valley and into the Pacific Ocean. In its lower reaches today, Thus began a major nonnative trout removal project, started most of the Kern River is diverted for irrigation into Central Valley in 1969 and still in progress today. It involves exclusion of further farms. nonnative downstream trout introductions (the source of much of the Access to the golden trout country today is very difficult. Road problem), chemical treatments to remove invading fishes, fish barrier access simply does not exist, and to reach the area involves about a construction to prevent reinvasion, and post-treatment reintroduction 4–5 hour hike or horseback trip from the eastern Sierra over 3,353 of hopefully pure golden trout stocks. There seems little question that m (11,000’) passes, or via an equally lengthy journey from the south. what I am describing constitutes perhaps the most involved and lengthy Until the early 1980s, when provisions of the newly created Golden effort ever conducted for the restoration of any fish species, freshwater Trout Wilderness were implemented, access to the area was possible or marine, compounded by habitat damage resulting from a century via the 487 m (1,600’) Tunnel Meadows airstrip, lying at an elevation of livestock overgrazing. There are no quick or easy answers to such of 2,743 m (9,000’) that could accommodate a Cessna 206 aircraft a situation. The overall project involved chemical treatment of more with the ability to transport personnel and fish restoration equipment than 160 km (100 miles) of stream, and through the years required

California Department of Fish and Game biologist Darrell Wong removes brown trout from below the disintegrating Templeton gabion barrier, replaced with a concrete structure in 1996. E dwin P. (P hil ) P ister

Fisheries • v o l 35 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2010 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 551 on-the-ground assistance from more than 100 persons representing nearby Cottonwood Lakes, near headwaters of the South Fork Kern the California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Forest Service, yet hydrologically separated. In 1891 the Cottonwood Lakes had been U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nevada Department of Wildlife, and stocked with golden trout from Cottonwood Creek originating from the University of California. Inyo National Forest managers are now Volcano Creek. Rainbow trout inadvertently introduced during the working to reduce, or eliminate, the livestock problem. 1930s may have been the source of genetic hybridization with the To achieve project objectives, chemical treatments to remove brown Cottonwood Lakes broodstock (University of Montana fish geneticist trout and hybridized golden trout x rainbow trout were conducted Robb Leary, letter to E.P. Pister, 1995). Since 1917 Cottonwood Lakes during a period extending for 25 years, from 1969 to 1994, initially golden trout eggs were hatched out at the Mt. Whitney Hatchery near utilizing calcium hypochlorite (HTH), then antimycin, rotenone, Independence in the Owens Valley. The fingerlings produced were and combinations of the latter two. Antimycin was a relatively new utilized for stocking waters throughout the Sierra Nevada and even chemical in 1976 when it was first used by us, and we were anxious exported to other states and nations. to learn more about its overall environmental impact, especially on Indeed, the Cottonwood Lakes fish began to show morphological highly important aquatic insect fauna. We therefore implemented a aberrations typified by heavy spotting below the lateral line and were major study conducted by Sally Stefferud, then a graduate student from later verified by geneticists (Cordes, et al. 2003). California Fish and Oregon State University and an employee of the California Department Game managers, faced with this situation, and a barn door closed long of Fish and Game, and now recently retired from the U.S. Fish and after the horse had escaped, still use this hybridized stock for fisheries Wildlife Service. We were fortunate in this case to have within 182 m management purposes. Most anglers are unaware of genetic integrity, (200 yards) of the South Fork Kern River, the totally separate drainage and Cottonwood Lakes fish remain physically very attractive. This of Golden Trout Creek, separated by late Pleistocene vulcanism and entire matter continues under close scrutiny and scientific discussion. I glaciation, from which winged insect forms could quickly re-colonize began to suspect this introgression as early as 1953 at the beginning of treated areas of the South Fork Kern, and where golden trout were my long career working to restore native fishes throughout California held for restocking following piscicide application. Utilizing a triage and the Southwest. The Department of Fish and Game is now concept, which considered the fact that without chemical treatment investigating ways to establish a new, uncontaminated broodstock, and extinction of the golden trout was a virtual certainty, and the loss this will also require major input from geneticists. of any aquatic insect taxa highly unlikely, we felt it safe to continue with the project. Both rotenone and antimycin strongly affect all gill- Where are we now? breathing organisms. At this point (41 years after the first treatment) we now appear to A related dilemma have been successful in removing brown trout and even less acceptable hybrids from the upper South Fork Kern River. If our fish barriers To meet golden trout management needs, in 1917 the California remain intact the status quo should continue, assuming that illegal Department of Fish and Game established egg-taking facilities at the introductions above the barriers do not occur (Rahel 2004). Barriers

From bottom to top: Tunnel, Ramshaw, and Templeton: three meadows of the upper South Fork Kern River in which the California golden trout evolved. in upper right of photo. The high points on the skyline are Olancha (extreme upper left) and Kern peaks, elev. 12,123’ and 11,510’. E dwin P. (P hil ) P ister

552 Fisheries • v o l 35 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2010 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g were placed to require future chemical treatment only of the lowest extensive recovery effort, the California Department of Fish and stream sections, precluding treatment of the entire drainage above. Game and other cooperating agencies provide a road map into the Management actions to restore and protect the California golden trout future with their “Conservation Assessment and Strategy for the now rely largely on guidance from geneticists who we hope can tell California Golden Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss aguabonita) Tulare us what we need to know about the purity and diversity of existing County, California” (California Department of Fish and Game populations, both in the South Fork Kern and in nearby Golden Trout 2004). This document provides a detailed history of past recovery Creek. As Bob Behnke once stated (with his usual combination of work and a strategy for future action. Easy answers? There are humor and pragmatism): “I keep a bottle of whiskey under my desk, none. Hard work? More than one can imagine. just awaiting the next phone call from a fish geneticist.” There is a growing need among the larger public and angling References communities for an improved environmental ethic that emphasizes the overwhelming importance of native species as opposed to nonnatives, California Department of Fish and Game, et al. 2004. Conservation as well as the need to monitor these populations to detect change assessment and strategy for the California Golden Trout (Oncorhynchus (including spread of nonnatives). The need for monitoring will become mykiss aguabonita), Tulare County, California. California Department even more important as climate change progresses. The role of public of Fish and Game; USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region; education in preservation of species cannot be overemphasized. and U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. Cordes, J. F., M. R. Stephens, and B. May. 2003. Genetic status of The future California golden trout in the South Fork Kern River and Transplanted A wise person once observed that understanding a problem Populations. Report to the Threatened Trout Committee, California Department of Fish and Game. December 2003. California Department constitutes at least half of its solution. I remain optimistic about the of Fish and Game, Sacramento. future of the golden trout. We are now much farther ahead than we Evermann, B. W. 1906. The golden trout of the southern High Sierras. were in 1965 when the recovery effort started. I often draw the analogy U.S. Bureau of Fisheries Bulletin 25:1-51. of a person painting his house with a toothbrush. When you finally Rahel, F. J. 2004. Unauthorized fish introductions: fisheries management realize the difficulty involved, you’ve gone so far that you know you of the people, for the people, or by the people? Pages 431-444 in M. have to keep going. I remain involved today even at the age of 81, and J. Nickum, P. M. Mazik, J.G. Nickum, and D. D. MacKinlay, editors. 21 years into retirement. Despite the fact that the golden trout project Propagated Fishes in Resource Management, American Fisheries has been assumed by highly competent successors, after being involved Society, Symposium 44, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, with it for more than 50 years and convinced that history of this sort Maryland. remains very important, I find it difficult to completely “let go.” Stearley, R. F . and G. R. Smith. 1993. Phylogeny of the Pacific Recognizing that we still have a lot to do before we totally and , Oncorhynchus, and genera of the family Salmonidae. understand and solve the myriad problems involved with such an Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 122:1-33.

The new Schaeffer barrier, built immediately below the disintegrating gabion barrier and completed by the California Department of Water Resources under contract to the Department of Fish and Game in 2003 at a cost in excess of $2 million. This barrier lies at the extreme southern end of the Inyo National Forest’s Golden Trout Wilderness. E dwin P. (P hil ) P ister

Fisheries • v o l 35 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2010 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 553 sum

COLUMN: Fish Management Chemicals Subcommittee Following the recent affirmative reregistration GUEST DIRECTOR’S LINE decisions for rotenone and antimycin, the Fish Management Chemicals Subcommittee reflects on previous accomplishments and future challenges.

Stewarding Piscicides as Tools in Fish Management: AFS’s Role in Assuring Future Availability in a Changing World

Product stewardship is a concept values and understanding of ecosystem Brian Finlayson, where environmental protection function. Previously, piscicides were centers on the prudent use of the used almost exclusively for creating Rosalie Schnick, and product, and everyone involved in and maintaining fisheries comprised Don Skaar the use of the product, is asked to of game species, sometimes at the Finlayson is a senior environmental take responsibility for reducing its expense of native species. Now the scientist (retired) with the environmental impact. This concept is focus has begun to reverse, and more California Department of Fish a natural fit for the piscicides rotenone common objectives today are restoring and Game, Schnick is an adjunct and antimycin, since their use is often native species, eliminating invasive professor (retired) with Michigan controversial because of environmental alien species, and maintaining natural State University, and Skaar is a fish and public health concerns. Those not biodiversity in native ecosystems. management section supervisor practicing stewardship often end up Nobody would have thought of the with Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Finlayson can be contacted dealing with time-consuming public idea of using rotenone to remove at [email protected] relations and environmental regulatory nonnative for the restoration problems (see Fisheries 25(5):22-23; of native amphibians 40 years ago, 27(6):10-18; 30(4):29-31; 30(5):10- although the Lawrence Livermore are to assure the safe, effective and 19; 35(2):61-71). Since the 1980s, National Laboratory in California did prudent use of rotenone by fishery their use has been challenged, halted, just that in 2006. professionals, inform the public of and discouraged in many areas of In 1997, the FMCS obtained the rotenone’s benefits and risks, provide North America. In 1993, following first of several grants for rotenone up-to-date information to fishery AFS symposia on fishery chemicals, stewardship from the U.S. Fish and professionals on all aspects of rotenone the need to respond to these concerns Wildlife Service (FWS), Division of use, and develop proactive strategies and issues and develop stewardship Federal Aid to determine current for rotenone’s continued use. Over the programs was recognized, and the Fish years, the FMCS has been involved in Management Chemicals Subcommittee The use of piscicides many aspects of rotenone use from (FMCS) was organized under the will continue to be challenged native fish restoration, including Task Force on Fishery Chemicals. the development of piscicide The goals of the FMCS are on a number of fronts despite our information for the general to provide (1) leadership in best efforts at stewardship. These issues public, addressing public health the learning and training of will be the focus of the next FMCS and environmental concerns, practicing fishery professionals symposium on piscicides at the and most recently providing on the safe, effective and prudent input to the development of use of piscicides and (2) stewardship 2011 AFS Annual Meeting water quality discharge permits. of piscicides in attaining overall in Seattle. Much of this information has been ecosystem balance. These goals are published in professional journals complementary to those of the AFS use patterns, issues and restrictions, and magazines and is available on Strategic Plan of becoming a leader in and to use this information in the the Rotenone Stewardship Program the conservation of fisheries resources development of a technical and website at www.fisheries.org/units/ and facilitating learning and training administrative guidelines manual, rotenone. for practicing professionals. the Rotenone Use Manual. Following In 2000, FMCS obtained Rotenone and antimycin have the symposium entitled “Rotenone administrative funds from the FWS been used by fishery managers to in fisheries management: are the Wallop-Breaux Sports Fish Restoration remove “undesirable” fish from rewards worth the risk?” at the Program to assess the current and lakes and streams for more than 2000 annual AFS meeting, the potential use of antimycin in fisheries 50 years, although the definition “Rotenone Stewardship Program” and its potential for reregistration of “undesirable” has changed was established. The objectives of (see Fisheries 27(6):10-18). Although considerably with shifting conservation the Rotenone Stewardship Program not used as extensively as rotenone,

554 Fisheries • v o l 35 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2010 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g it was used by the catfish farmers for risk measures to the EPA at an August and often counterproductive scaled fish control and by some fish 2008 meeting that were practical, and environmental regulations, and difficult and wildlife management agencies limited rotenone exposure; these were acceptance of environmental tradeoffs. for the restoration of native species. ultimately accepted by the EPA. There To facilitate better communication During the assessment, several issues were similar issues with antimycin, and among fishery professionals on these were identified including the lack of the FMCS provided similar comments issues, FMCS sponsored three symposia adequate instructions on the product to the EPA after they issued the at AFS national meetings: (1) The labeling. To correct this void, the FMCS antimycin RED in May 2007 (EPA- Role of Environmental Stewardship wrote the Fintrol® Stream and River 738-R-07-007). As a requirement for in Shaping the Use of Fishery Use Monograph and the Fintrol® Pond, the reregistraion for rotenone, FMCS Management Chemicals (2002); (2) Lake and Reservoir Use Monograph; developed the AFS Rotenone Standard National and International Challenges both can be downloaded from the AFS Operating Procedures (SOP) Manual. and Lessons Learned on Fish website at www.fisheries.org. This was written in conjunction with Management Chemicals (2005); and In 1988, the U.S. Environmental the EPA and rotenone registrants using (3) Global Issues and Policies Affecting Protection Agency (EPA) placed all FWS funding. Ecosystem Restoration Projects using pesticides including rotenone and In 2001, FMCS began discussing Rotenone and Antimycin (2007). antimycin registered prior to 1984 into the need for training professionals In 2009, the Sixth Circuit Court a reregistration process. The process in piscicide use, and in 2003, in mandated that the EPA develop required acute and chronic toxicity cooperation with FWS, developed a wastewater discharge (National and environmental fate and behavior training course with the intent that the Pollution Discharge Elimination data to support the generation of training would standardize techniques System (NPDES)) permits for the assessments to estimate risks on for the application of piscicides using application of pesticides in and the Rotenone Use Manual, and more human health and the environment. around water. The proposed permit Fortunately, the FWS had funded recently, the Rotenone SOP Manual conditions were distributed this year, many of the needed studies for as guides. FMCS, in conjunction and NPDES permit conditions will rotenone in the 1980s so these data with Utah State University (USU) and be finalized in 2011. This may prove were available. However, similar data AFS USU Student Subunit of the to be the most challenging task yet were not available for antimycin, Bonneville Chapter, offer a week-long for the use of piscicides: crafting but the FMCS 2000 assessment of training course on piscicides entitled NPDES permit conditions that do not antimycin use (see Fisheries 27(6):10- “Planning and Executing Successful require inappropriately low treatment 18) convinced the EPA that some of Rotenone and Antimycin Projects.” dosages nor restrict the size of the these studies were not necessary at The course focuses on soliciting treatment zone areas in an attempt the present time for the reregistration public involvement, project planning, to proceed. FMCS kept fisheries environmental and applicator safety, to “minimize pesticide discharges professionals informed on the progress and application and deactivation into waters If target fish survive and of the reregistrations in several techniques. The course has also been reproduce and ultimately repopulate updates published in Fisheries in 2007 given in other locations including the treatment area after treatment, and 2008. After the EPA issued the Arizona, and the course is also planned then a considerable quantity of Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for New York in in 2011. The tenth pisicicide as well as time and expense in March 2007 (EPA-738-R-07-005) class was given in 2010, and over 150 would be wasted. Such potentially authorizing the reregistration of fishery professionals have been trained counterproductive restrictions have rotenone, FMCS provided written to date. EPA’s REDs for rotenone already been permitted in Vermont and comments to the EPA on proposed and antimycin recommend that California by water quality agencies. risk mitigation measures and labeling applicators receive training on the use There were also significant process, changes, and many state and federal of piscicides. A schedule of current AFS legal, and jurisdiction issues associated fish and wildlife agencies followed classes can be viewed at www.fisheries. with the proposed NPDES permits, too suit by providing similar comments org/units/rotenone. extensive to discuss here. to the EPA. Significant concerns A number of issues have developed The use of piscicides will continue to included enforceability and content of over the years including adequate be challenged on a number of fronts operation manuals versus labels, need training and guidance for applicators, despite our best efforts at stewardship. for additional safety gear, allowable public education in an era of public These issues will be the focus of the treatment rates and sites, chemical concern, unscientific assessment of next FMCS symposium on piscicides deactivation, and restrictive application impacts, indiscriminate acceptance of at the 2011 AFS Annual Meeting in procedures. FMCS proposed alternative non-chemical alternatives, duplicative Seattle.

Fisheries • v o l 35 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2010 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 555 NEWS: AFS UNITS

Student paper presenters included (left to right) Michelle Tipton, Yoichiro Kanno, Todd Massari, and David Bethoney (front), Jon Velotta, Christina Kennedy, Carissa Gervasi, and Jennifer Linehan (middle), and Jeff Divino, Andew Foley, Greg DeCelles, Derek Perry, and Dan Watrous (back).

Southern New England Chapter these presentations were made by ecology of four demersal predators: The Southern New England students. Abstracts may be found on black sea bass, scup, northern searobin, Chapter’s 2010 winter meeting was the Chapter’s website at www.snec- and striped searobin. held at the University of Connecticut’s fisheries.org. —Donald J. Danila Avery point campus in Groton, CT One award was presented on 28 January. There were 104 at the meeting. Carrie Byron attendees, including 33 students. of the University of Rhode The meeting’s technical presentations Island received the Saul B. included thirteen oral papers and Saila Best Student Paper nine posters. In keeping with Award for her presentation the Chapter’s interest in fostering at the June 2009 Chapter student participation, fourteen of meeting on the feeding

Carrie Byron receives the Saul B. Saila Best Student Paper Award from Karina Mrakovcich

O.S. Systems, Inc.

Emperor Aquatics, Inc.

556 Fisheries • v o l 35 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2010 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g You are 1 degree of separation from changing your world. Which 1 will it be?

79 affordable degrees of distinction – 100% online, including Environmental Studies with concentrations in:

Fish and Wildlife Management Environmental Sustainability Environmental Planning Global Environmental Management Environmental Technology Management

Let us help you get started today. 1.877.777.9081 • www.studyatAPU.com/enviro

2009 & 2010 Effective Practices Award

AwArd winner 2009 Ralph E. Gomory Award for Quality Online Education

Respected. Affordable. Online.

Halltech Aquatic Resources, Inc.

Fisheries • v o l 35 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2010 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 557 WRAP UP: AFS 140th ANNUAL MEETING 12 September–16 September 2010 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Pittsburgh Catches Fisheries Photos by Sring Gearhart, Pennsylvania Fsh and Boat Commission and Beth Beard, AFS Staff

eading north from 2009’s On Friday, the Governing Board education workshops and section Nashville meeting, fi sheries enjoyed a retreat and discussion time meetings, with the much-anticipated Hprofessionals, students, and guests on the site of architectural marvel Welcome Social beginning at 6 p.m. gathered in Pittsburgh from 12 Fallingwater. Their deliberations at the Convention Center. Attendees September to 16 September for continued Saturday at the Westin— enjoyed fellowship, food, and the 140th Annual Meeting of the the convention hotel— American Fisheries Society. The 2010 while other meetings meeting theme was “Merging our and the off-site Basic/ Deeper Currents,” and conference Intermediate GIS for goers met in the David L. Lawrence Fisheries Biologists Convention Center. This, the world’s seminar took place fi rst “green” convention center, elsewhere. was a location in harmony with the planners’ desire to make AFS 2010 unday kicked off with the “greenest” meeting to date. Sa host of continuing Merging Our Deeper Currents

558 Fisheries • v o l 35 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2010 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g threatened, he argues called this an exciting time in fi sheries that fi sheries ecologists science, given President Obama’s are not asking the right probing questions during the BP questions. An imperative Oil Spill. She explained how the IT is the relationship revolutions in science have brought between assessment about a constant stream of data (of management that requires careful examination, choices habitat and she called for attendees to managements) and cross lines of age and disciplines resource management, to work on real world problems. In along with a proper time the area of international fi sheries, drink while looking out over the interval for collection there are huge challenges in regional Allegheny River. and monitoring of the data. The management organizations because assessment processes and subsequent of unsustainable practices, and she onday morning opened models also need to be accessible to argued that performance will increase with the Plenary Speakers everyone. Meanwhile, Cowx pointed when conservation and economics MBreakfast at the Convention Center. out that another challenge for are aligned. Finally, Lubchenco Plenary Session speaker Ian Cowx fi sheries is their low standing from highlighted the executive order initiated the talks with “Fisheries an economic perspective, in part signed in July, which established a and the Science Imperative.” Cowx, because ecologists and economists National Ocean Policy by adopting director of the University of Hull are not operating in the same the Ocean Policy Task Force. International Fisheries Institute workshops or groups. This document, which focuses on (HIFI) in the United Kingdom, asked stewardship, assigns nine objectives what the importance of fi sheries ollowing Cowx was Jane to the newly-created National Ocean was to society as he examined the FLubchenco, who serves as Council, and implements change shifting position and roles of science, administrator of the National in how 24 departments and offi ces people, and emerging environmental Oceanic and Atmospheric think about how they operate. and sustainability issues in the Administration (NOAA). Her management of fi sheries. In a message entitled “Fisheries in the ext, Larry Schweiger, president time when 55% of freshwater Current: The Role of Fisheries in Nand chief executive offi cer of species are extinct, endangered, or the Nation’s New Ocean Policy” the National Wildlife Federation,

Ian Cowx Jane Lubchenco Larry Schweiger

Fisheries • v o l 35 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2010 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 559 laid out “What It Will Take to Save Wildlife on Earth.” He dedicated the talk to late mentor and Pennsylvania fi sh commissioner Ralph Abele who was known to say “Fight no small battles.” Schweiger encouraged attendees to move beyond the comfort zones of fi sheries and take steps to improve the environment for the children who will inherit it. He highlighted example after example of the dangers and implications of the rising CO2 in the atmosphere and argued that attendees had the obligation to keep the affected species alive. He discussed decline in trout habitats and Great Lakes ice cover. Like Lubchenco, Schweiger cautioned that discernment is needed for the barrage of environmental information and data. He mentioned the dangers of paradigm blindness in scientists, and encouraged attendees faced with environmental information to ask themselves who was speaking and why.

o conclude, Melissa Wuellner, assistant professor and distance educationT coordinator in the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Science at South Dakota State University, spoke on “The Emerging by the acquisition of new members Cohort of Fisheries Professional: during their student days through Are We Really So Different from the infl uence of professors or other the Older Generations?” Wuellner members. She argued that scientifi c discussed the membership crisis societies must go beyond being just in scientifi c societies where young journals and meetings, and look for professionals and students do not what young cohorts need to stay and make up enough of the membership succeed. She recommended more populace to replace retiring Boomers. promotion of youth involvement, She mentioned helpful youth mentoring, the further development retention efforts, including dues of networking, and journal review; reductions and increased service and she suggested AFS applications, offerings; retention was also helped such as job placement assistance,

Melissa Wuellner

560 Fisheries • v o l 35 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2010 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g inexpensive web tools, and guidance during the transitions of students “Fish Culture,” session for “Best Student Paper,” and and young “Invasive a student-only Social aboard a boat professionals. Species,” and from the Gateway Clipper fl eet. The Plenary “Conserving Session was Aquatic lso on Tuesday, the AFS followed by the AFS Trade Show Resources in the Ohio Basin: From ABusiness Meeting was held. The and Auction, an enjoyable time for Planning to Action.” To round off Governing Board was represented attendees as they perused exhibits the day, there was a Student-Mentor well, both geographically and by and posters, met with vendors, Happy Hour. discipline. All awards not presented at and enjoyed more food and drink. the Plenary Session were introduced Numerous symposia were presented uesday boasted continuing (and will be published in our throughout the week, covering such Tseminars from the day before, December issue). As well, there were sessions as freshwater ecology, new as well as new sessions dealing with two greetings from the international approaches to landscapes and fi sh- “Stock Assessment Methods for community: Felicity A. Huntingford, habitat relationships, and, probably Data Poor Situations,” “Sturgeon,” the President of the The Fisheries most notable, the one pulled together and other topics. The spotlight Society of the British Isles, and by (now Past-President of AFS) Don turned to students, and activities Shugo Watabe, who represented the Jackson, who invited government included a career fair, the terminal Japanese Society of Fisheries Science. agencies to talk about their responses to the BP oil crisis (visit http:// www.fi sheries.org for transcripts and a web presentation, including the Q&A’s). In attendance were: Brian Alford of the Louisiana Department. of Wildlife and Fisheries ; Steve Murawski of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA); Dan Ashe of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and John Epifanio of the U.S. Geological Survey.Monday sessions began with

Fisheries • v o l 35 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2010 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 561 A presentation was also given featured a fi eld trip about next year’s meeting in Seattle. to the Pittsburgh Executive Director of the AFS, Gus Zoo and PPG Rassam, gave the fi nancial report. Aquarium, a And the ceremony for new offi cers world leader in took place. Don Jackson retired to conservation and the position of Past President, with green initiatives. Wayne Hubert moving into his place Attendees as President. William Fisher became had use of the President Elect. John Boreman the entire zoo, became the First Vice President. And and visited the the Second Vice President, Robert diverse wildlife, Hughes, was ushered in. socialized, and enjoyed an ample ednesday’s seminars food spread put included “Merging on by the facility DeeperW Currents —A Focus on caterer “Taste of the Wild.” “Science Perspectives on the British Renewable EnergyDevelopment Petroleum Oil Spill in the Gulf in Our Rivers,” and “Hydrokinetic n Thursday, attendees were of Mexico.” Thursday’s evening Electricity Generation and Fish: Oable to enjoy the conclusions Farewell Social gave attendees a Asking the Right Questions, of multi-part seminars begun earlier chance to relax on the Convention Getting Useful Answers.” in the week, as well as experience Center Terrace one last time. Wednesday evening’s Grand Social one-time presentations like held its 120th AFSmeeting in Pittsburgh in 1990, and 20 years later for our 140th meeting, the location proved to be a great success. Next year AFS looks forward to heading to the west coast, where we’ll host our annual meeting in Seattle.

Additional photos from the meeting are available online at www.flickr.com/photos/americanfisheriessociety.

562 Fisheries • v o l 35 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2010 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g Inland Fisheries Management in North America, Third Edition Edited by Wayne Hubert and Michael Quist

738 pages, index, hardcover List price: $104.00 AFS Member price: $73.00 Item Number: 550.60C Published October 2010

TO ORDER: Online: www.afsbooks.org American Fisheries Society c/o Books International P.O. Box 605 Herndon, VA 20172 Phone: 703-661-1570 Fax: 703-996-1010

This book describes the conceptual basis and current management practices for freshwa- ter fisheries of North America. This third edition is written by an array of new authors who bring novel and innovative perspectives. The book incorporates recent technological and social developments and uses pertinent literature to support the presented concepts and methods.

Covered topics include the process of fisheries management, fishery assessments, habitat and community manipulations, and the common practices for managing stream, river, lake, and reservoir fisheries. Chapters on history, population dynamics, assessing fisheries, regulation of fisheries, use of hatchery fish, and the process and legal framework of fisheries manage- ment are included along with innovative chapters on scales of fisheries management, com- munication and conflict resolution, managing undesired and invading species, ecological integrity, emerging multispecies approaches, and use of social and economic information.

The book is intended for use in fisheries management courses for undergraduate or gradu- ate students, as well as for practicing fisheries managers.

Fisheries • v o l 35 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2010 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 563 Third Call for Papers Seattle 2011

It’s already time to start planning your trip to discouraged because of time constraints. The 2. Organizer(s): Provide name, address, Seattle for the AFS 141st Annual Meeting! Program Committee will work with symposium telephone number, fax number, and e-mail The meeting’s theme, “New Frontiers in organizers to fill unused time slots with address of each organizer. Indicate by an Fisheries Management and Ecology: Leading appropriate presentations that were submitted as the Way in a Changing World,” promises to contributed papers. asterisk the name of the main contact person. bring forth the latest and greatest information Traditionally, symposia have been dominated 3. Description: In 300 words or less, describe and discussions regarding the huge challenges by oral presentations and sometimes the topic addressed by the proposed facing fishery resource managers today. The supplemented by posters. If posters are part of AFS 2011 meeting will be 4-8 September 2011 a symposium, they can be complemented by symposium, the objective of the symposium, at the Washington State Convention Center “Speed Presentations,” short oral presentations and the value of the symposium to AFS and neighboring Sheraton Hotel, in downtown of the highlights of posters. This format members and participants. Seattle. We look forward to seeing you in Seattle! elevates the profile of symposium posters, shortens the time required for symposia, and 4. Format and time requirement: Indicate Ge n e r a l In f o r m a t i o n encourages interaction at the poster session. the mix of formats (oral and poster). Speed presentations can be an effective way to State the time required for regular oral Aquatic resource professionals at all levels and disseminate information and foster one-on-one backgrounds, especially students, are invited to interactions among symposium participants and presentations (i.e., 20 minutes per speaker) submit symposia proposals and abstracts for poster presenters. See Fisheries 32(12):576 for and the time required for speed presentations papers in all relevant topics and disciplines. The more information on this format. and poster viewing (3 minutes per speaker scientific program of the meeting consists of Regular oral presentations are limited to 20 plus 1 hour of poster viewing). three types of sessions: minutes, but double time slots (i.e., 40 minutes) 5. Supply name(s) of individual(s) who • Symposia, may be offered to keynote speakers. Symposium Chairs: • Contributed Papers, and proposals must be submitted by 14 January will chair the symposium. 2011. All symposium proposal submissions • Posters. 6. Presentation requirements: Speakers are must be made using the AFS online symposium Oral presentations except a limited number of proposal submission form, which is available required to use PowerPoint for presentations. symposium presentations, will be limited to 20 on the AFS website (www.fisheries.org). If 7. Audiovisual requirements: LCD projectors minutes (15 minutes for presentation plus 5 you do not receive confirmation that we have and laptops will be available in every room. minutes for speaker introduction and questions). received your proposal by 21 January 2011, All oral presenters are expected to deliver please contact the Symposium Subcommittee Other audiovisual equipment needed for the PowerPoint presentations. (see contact information below). The Program symposium will be considered, but computer Committee will review all symposium projection is strongly encouraged. Sy m p o si a proposals and notify organizers of acceptance 8. Special seating requests: Standard rooms The Program Committee invites proposals for or refusal by 11 February 2011. If accepted, will be arranged theatre-style. Please indicate symposia. Topics must be of general interest organizers must submit a complete list of all to AFS members, and topics related to the confirmed presentations and titles by4 March special seating requests (for example, “after Symposium abstracts (in the same format meeting theme will receive priority. Symposium 2011. the break, a panel discussion with seating for as contributed abstracts; see below) are due by organizers are responsible for recruiting 10 panel members will be needed”). presenters, soliciting their abstracts, and directing 11 March 2011. 9. them to submit their abstracts and presentations f o r m a t f o r List of presentations: through the AFS online submission forms. A s y m p o si u m p r o p o s a l s Please supply information in the following symposium should include a minimum of 10 (Submit using AFS online symposium format: presentations and we encourage organizers submission form) Presenter’s name: to limit their requests to one-day symposia When submitting your abstract, include the (about 20 oral presentations). Symposia with following: 1. ______more than 20 presentations are strongly 1. Symposium title: Brief but descriptive. 2. ______

564 Fisheries • v o l 35 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2010 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g Tentative title of presentation: • Provide a summary of your findings and Fo r Al l Ab s t r a c t s , Fo r m a t a s i n t h e 1. ______restrict your abstract to 200 words. Fo l l o w i n g Ex a m p l e 2. ______Title: An example abstract for the AFS 2010 All presenters will receive a prompt e-mail Confirmed : Yes/no Annual Meeting confirmation of their abstract submission Format (regular or speed presentation): Format: Oral and will be notified of acceptance and the 1. ______Authors: designated time and place of their presentation 2. ______Busack, Craig. NOAA Salmon Recovery by 15 April 2011. 10. Sponsors: If applicable, indicate Division, 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd., Suite 1100, sponsorship. Please note that a sponsor is The Program Committee will, as much as Portland, OR 97232; 503/230-5412; craig. not required. possible, group contributed papers thematically. [email protected] To assist in this, you will have the opportunity Ward, Dave. Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Co n t r i b u t e d Pa p e r s during the abstract submission process to Authority, 851 SW Sixth Avenue, Suite 300 indicate which one or two of the following Portland, OR 97204; 503/274-7285; dave. a n d o s t e r s P general topic areas best fit the concept of your [email protected] Presenter: Craig Busack The program committee invites abstracts for abstract. Topics include: Abstract: Abstracts are used by the Program presentations for contributed paper and poster Bioengineering Committee to evaluate and select papers sessions. Authors must indicate their preferred Communities and Ecosystems for inclusion in the scientific and technical presentation format: Contaminants and Toxicology sessions of the 2010 AFS Annual Meeting. An Education informative abstract contains a statement of the 1. Contributed paper only, Fish Culture problem and its significance, study objectives, 2. Poster only, Fish Health 3. Contributed paper preferred, Fish Conservation principal findings and application, and it but poster acceptable. Freshwater Fish Ecology conforms to the prescribed format. An abstract Only one contributed paper presentation will be Freshwater Fisheries Management must be no more than 200 words in length. accepted for each senior author. We encourage Genetics Student presenter? No poster submissions because of the limited time Habitat and Water Quality r o g r a m o m m i t t e e available for contributed papers. The program Human Dimensions P C Marine Fish Ecology will include a dedicated poster session to Co n t a c t s Marine Fisheries Management encourage discussion between poster authors Native Fishes Pr o g r a m Co-Ch a i r s and attendees. Physiology Policy Craig Busack St u d e n t Pr e s e n t e r s Population Dynamics NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service [email protected] Student presenters must indicate if they wish Statistics and Modeling Species-Specific (specify) 503/230-5412 their abstract to be considered for competition Other (specify). Dave Ward for a best presentation (i.e., paper or poster, Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority but not both) award. If they respond “no,” the Late submissions will not be accepted. AFS [email protected] presentation will be considered for inclusion in does not waive registration fees for presenters 503/274-7285 the Annual Meeting by the Program Committee, at symposia, workshops, or contributed paper Co n t r i b u t e d Pa p e r s Su b c o m m i t t e e Ch a i r but will not receive further consideration by sessions. All presenters and meeting attendees Dave Ward the Student Judging Committee. If students must pay registration fees. Registration forms Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority will be available on the AFS website (www. indicate “yes,” they will be required to submit an [email protected] fisheries.org) inMay 2011; register early for cost application to the Student Judging Committee. 503/274-7285 Components of the application will include an savings. Sy m p o si a Su b c o m m i t t e e Ch a i r extended abstract and a check-off from their f o r m a t f o r a b s t r a c t s Peter A. Bisson mentor indicating that the study is at a stage USDA Forest Service appropriate for consideration for an award. Fo r Sy m p o si u m Ab s t r a c t s 360/753-7671 (must be solicited by symposium organizer): [email protected] Ab s t r a c t Su b m issi o n Enter Symposium title: Po s t e r s Su b c o m m i t t e e Ch a i r 1. ______Abstracts for contributed papers and posters Steve Schroder 2. ______must be received by 11 February 2011. All Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Specify format: submissions must be made using the AFS online 360/902-2751 1. Oral abstract submission form, which is available [email protected] 2. Speed presentation (accompanied by poster) on the AFS website (www.fisheries.org). When Fo r Co n t r i b u t e d Pa p e r submitting your abstract: a n d Po s t e r Ab s t r a c t s • Use a brief but descriptive title, avoiding Enter 2 choices for topic: acronyms or scientific names in the title 1. ______unless the common name is not widely 2. ______known; 1. Contributed paper • List all authors, their affiliations, addresses, 2. Poster telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses; 3. Contributed paper preferred, and but poster acceptable www.fisheries.org/AFS2011

Fisheries • v o l 35 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2010 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 565 COLUMN: PRESIDENT’S HOOK Continued from page 524

They don’t have courses with biologists working in the field the traditional “ologies,” sport or fish or fisheries in the title for state and federal agencies. commercial fishes emphases, and anymore. The education that students are practical experiences have occurred receiving at universities may not while there have been increases in Well, what kind of courses be matching the needs of agencies ecology-focused courses steeped did you take that involved focused on traditional sport or in theory with non-game, non- fish or water? commercial fisheries management consumptive perspectives being The tech perked up and responded activities. Is this a problem or not? emphasized. Steve Chips with with a short list. In a first step toward addressing the South Dakota Cooperative this issue, the AFS Governing Board Fish and Wildlife Research Unit When I was an undergrad, I addressed graduate education. had Evolution and held a retreat on 10 September, of Lower Vertebrates, 2010 preceding the annual meeting His perspective was that there is Environmental Biology, and in Pittsburgh. Six fisheries scientists a changing demographic among Limnology. from agencies and universities students with a decline in the rural provided their perspectives. “hook and bullet crowd” and Did you go out in the field Ron Essig, a biologist with the subsequent increases in students with any of those courses? U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, from urban areas with strong pointed out that the agency environmental and conservation Yep. We had three field trips needs people with educations in interests. Faculty are changing in Limnology, one to a lake, habitat protection and restoration, in a similar manner as programs another to a reservoir, and population assessment skills, shift to accommodate sources a third to a sewage lagoon. genetics, disease detection, and of research grants that focus on The TA demonstrated how invasive species control, as well ecological processes and generate to sample water quality as with the ability to work with more overhead. parameters at each place. partners and stakeholders. John Small group discussions among Boreman, recently retired from the members of the Governing Board What did you take for National Marine Fisheries Service, provided additional insights. your master’s? described the needs in marine One notion was that one of the I had stream Ecology, fisheries to be quantitative sciences strongest ways in which the Landscape Ecology, (e.g., modeling, mathematics, and AFS influences higher education Animal Behavior, Natural statistics), social sciences, resource is through its certification of Resource Management, and management and policy, ecology, professional fisheries scientists Conservation Biology, along systematics, environmental impact with schools maintaining curricula with a couple GIS courses, analysis, toxicology, and pathology, so graduating students may be three stats courses, and one with interdisciplinary abilities. Bob certified. on conflict resolution. Curry represented state agencies There seemed to be consensus and emphasized that they need that education of fisheries What’d you do for your management biologists, hatchery scientists was a topic that needed thesis? biologists, and research biologists, to be addressed further and the I modeled possible effects of all with oral communication skills. Governing board provided a green climate change on native fish Jesse Trushenski, a fish culture light for this pursuit. distributions in the state. specialist and university professor, The AFS has joined with The described how education in fish Wildlife Society, The Society of The district biologist draws in a culture requires practical experience American Foresters, and The deep breath, lets it partially out, and how that is diminishing. She Society for Range Management in and says, felt that “most recent grads have the Coalition of Natural Resource Son, I think we have a only learned how to grow fish on Societies (CNRS). The executive problem. paper.” Mike Quist spoke about directors of the four societies undergraduate education and have reflected the concerns of While this is just a story, it illustrated changes in curricula their members regarding the reflects the beliefs and maybe over the last half century. Declines training of future natural resource the experiences of many fisheries in field- and lab-based courses in management professionals. They

566 Fisheries • v o l 35 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2010 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g are all asking, “Is there an impending crisis?” To determine if this is a valid question and to identify potential solutions if it is, the CNRS is organizing a topic oriented meeting on the subject sometime in 2011. Planning is underway to include representatives from agencies, higher education, and nongovernment organization in the discourse. Watch for future announcements on this meeting. It should be a “humdinger” providing better insight into the issue and identifying how the Society may Oregon RFID lead the way in a changing world.

Sonotronics

How do you track a 10 gram fish?

Front view Side view 0.2 = 1mm2 With a 0.3 gram acoustic transmitter. JSATS (Juvenile Salmon Acoustic Telemetry System) compatible

Lotek Wireless L-AMT-2.1 L-AMT-1.1 L-AMT-2.1 L-AMT-1.1 www.lotek.com/200mg

Fisheries • v o l 35 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2010 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 567 CALENDAR: To submit upcoming events for inclusion on the AFS Web site Calendar, send event name, dates, city, state/province, web address, and contact information to [email protected]. (If space is available, events will also be printed in Fisheries magazine.)

More events listed at www.fisheries.org.

Nov 7-12 Eastern Marine Biology of Fisheries Research Taitung, Taiwan www.tfrin.gov.tw Institute Nov 8-11 Alaska Sea Grant 2010 Lowell Wakefield Fish Anchorage, Alaska http://seagrant.uaf.edu/conferences/2010/ eries Symposium: Global Progress on Ecosystem- wakefield-ecosystemb/index.php based Fisheries Management Nov 11-14 Western Society of Naturalists Annual Meeting San Diego, California www.wsn-online.org

Nov 14-17 Energy Use in Fisheries: Improving Efficiency Seattle, Washington www.energyfish.nmfs.noaa.gov and Technological Innovations from a Global Perspective Dec 1-2 12th Flatfish Biology Conference Westbrook, Connecticut www.mi.nmfs.gov/flatfishbiologyworkshop. html Dec 10-13 Fifth Shanghai International Fisheries and Shanghai, China www.sifse.com Seafood Exposition—The Best Opportunity to Explore Chinese Market Dec 12- 15 North Central Division, Minneapolis, Minnesota www.midwest2010.org joint with Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference

Floy Tag

568 Fisheries • v o l 35 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2010 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g EMPLOYERS: To list a job opening on the AFS Online Job Center submit a position ANNOUNCEMENTS: description, job title, agency/company, city, state, responsibilities, qualifications, salary, closing date, and contact information (maximum 150 words) to jobs@fisheries. JOB CENTER org. Online job announcements will be billed at $350 for 150 word increments. Please send billing information. Listings are free (150 words or less) for organizations with Associate, Official, and Sustaining memberships, and for Individual members, who are faculty members, hiring graduate assistants. If space is available, jobs may also be printed in Fisheries magazine, free of additional charge.

Quantitative Ecologist/Data Analyst Maine Cooperative Unit, Attn J. with the North Carolina Wildlife | Normandeau Associates, Inc., New Zydlewski, 5755 Nutting Hall, University Resources Commission and offer a mix Hampshire. of Maine, Orono, Maine 04469. of basic ecology and applied fisheries Salary: Depends on experience. Contact- [email protected]. management. Closing: 1 December 2010. Qualifications: Admission is Responsibilities: Work independently Ph.D. Graduate Research competitive and successful applicants to and with project scientists to develop Assistantship, North Carolina State our laboratory typically have GPA 3.5, and manage project-specific databases, University, Raleigh. GRE scores 1200, and at least some facilitate quality control/quality assurance Salary: $19,000 per year 12 months, field or laboratory experience, though of these data, and perform statistical health insurance and full tuition and fees exceptions can be made. In addition, and spatial analysis. paid. we re looking for students who are Qualifications: M.S. in applied statistics Start date: August 2011. motivated, enthusiastic, and work well or biostatistics, with supporting formal Responsibilities: . Project is focused independently and in a large group. training in ecology, fisheries, and aquatic on large-scale survey of the causes Contact: E-mail a letter of interest, ecology; or a M.S. in ecology, fisheries, and consequences of intersex fish. This c.v., names of references, and copies or aquatic ecology with supporting collaborative research project will be of transcripts and GRE scores (official formal training in applied statistics a mix of ecology, ecotoxicology, and copies not necessary) to Derek Aday and and biostatistics, and a minimum of fish biology, and will include field and Jim Rice at [email protected] and three years experience, preferably laboratory components. [email protected]. See http://www. in quantitative ecology. Possess a Qualifications: M.S. degree in ncsu.edu/project/fish-lab. demonstrated knowledge of analysis biology, toxicology, fisheries, ecology, software, including but not limited to or related environmental science field. Associate Director, New York Sea SAS, MATLAB, GIS and the application Exceptional students with a B.S. degree Grant Institute (NYSGI), College of of this software to describe patterns in and appropriate experience will be Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell biological and environmental data and considered . Experience in toxicology University, New York. test hypotheses concerning these data. and/or analytical methods a plus, but Salary: Depends on experience. Contact: Send cover letter and resume not required. Admission is competitive Closing: 19 January 2011. to HR@normandeau. selected students usually have GRE Responsibilities: Lead a dynamic, scores 1200 and a GPA 3.5, though highly-rated, university-based Sea Grant M.S. Graduate Assistantship, exceptions can be made for students Extension program that addresses University of Maine, Orono. with specific skills and experience. critical marine and Great Lakes coastal Salary: $19,500 per year, puls $2,400 Contact: Please e-mail a letter of issues. Serve as a member of the health, tuition waiver. Funding for interest, CV, and unofficial copies of GRE senior management team engaged minimum of 2.5 years, teacher’s scores, and college transcripts to Greg in administering, prioritizing, and assistantship of up to 1 year, research Cope, [email protected]. See: http:// expanding the NYSGI Program. Secure assistantship of up to 1.5 years. www.ncsu.edu/project/fish-lab. additional funding to complement Closing: 1 November 2010. the institute’s current $4M of support. Responsibilities: Model migration and M.S. Graduate Assistantships, North Collaborate in establishing program survival of Atlantic salmon smolts in the Carolina State University, Raleigh. direction and developing and Penobscot River. Work on collected data Salary: Approximately $17,500 per maintaining contacts with academic using acoustic and radio telemetry, as year plus payment of health insurance, units, key agencies, and legislative well as actively tagging and tracking fish. tuition, and fees. liaisons throughout New York State. Qualifications: B.S. in bio science Start date: August 2011. Collaborate in formulating research or equivalent, excellent quantitative Responsibilities: Available projects and outreach priorities and directions. skills, and interest in fisheries. GPA of are focused on two issues: movement Collaborate in maintaining institute 3.0 and GRE of 1100. Interest in smolt of coastal largemouth bass associated advisory mechanisms and groups. May physiology is an asset. Be motivated and with habitat availability and hypoxia, serve as NYSGI liaison with specific quantitatively inclined . and white bass life histories and agencies and programs. Serve as the Contact: Send CV, transcripts, 3 movement patterns in inland reservoirs. assistant director for Cornell Cooperative references and GRE scores to USGS Both projects are collaborative efforts Extension, providing leadership and

Fisheries • v o l 35 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2010 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 569 administration for Sea Grant Extension funded mainly by federal NOAA and Demonstrated skills and success in and coastal programs, supervising Sea New York State sources. program leadership, management, Grant Marine and Great Lakes District Qualifications: An earned Ph.D. with grant-writing, budget development, and program coordinators and other Sea at least 5 years professional outreach staff supervision. Experience with issues Grant staff, and overseeing grant and administrative experience in of importance to marine and/or Great proposal development, submission, aquatic science, natural resource, or Lakes coasts or resources. and reporting requirements. Develop, conservation management or other Contact: To apply, send cover letter, implement, and evaluate a substantive appropriate environmental sciences or resume, and transcripts to Nancy extension education program in her a M.S. with 10 years programmatic and Greenawalt, New York Sea Grant, 112 or his area of expertise that supports progressive administrative experience Rice Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, New Sea Grant Extension Program priorities. in the above fields and demonstrated York 14853. Review of applications Program may include relevant applied leadership experience. Substantive begins 23 August 2010. For full position research and development of grant professional experience in university- description see www.seagrant.sunysb. proposals to support the appointees based outreach or non-formal education edu/article.asp ArticleID 357 or contact extension and research activities. programs, as well as management Nancy Greenawalt at [email protected] Program is a SUNY-Cornell partnership or coordination of such programs. or 607/255-2832. AA. EOE.

11 Nov

570 Fisheries • v o l 35 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2010 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g Advanced Telemetry Systems

Fisheries • v o l 35 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2010 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 571 572 Fisheries • v o l 35 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2010 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g