American Fisheries Society •

Fisheries Vol 32 no 9 september 2007

American Fisheries Society •

Fish News Legislative Update Journal Highlights Calendar Job Center 2008 Annual Meeting

1st Call for Papers

Salmon c fi i c a P -Listed A S E r o f isco Bay Planning c y n — r a e r v F o n c a Re outh of S S e v i t a on Are N m l a S o Coh

Fisheries • vol 32 no 9 • september 2007 •


Lifelong Identification Using coded wire tags, researchers at Florida’s Mote Marine Lab are assessing the effect of release habitat on the recapture rate of hatchery reared snook. They recently recaptured their largest hatchery snook to date in the same spot where it had been released 6 years before. Photo by J. Brennan.

We frequently discuss tag retention with our customers—it varies widely with the tag, species, tag location, and skill of the tagger. Our Coded Wire Tag (CWT) is exceptional for its high retention across many taxa, even when implanted in very small animals. Retention for the life of the animal is the norm. Here are some interesting examples of long-term CWT recoveries: Biologists have been tagging sturgeon with CWT on the Missouri and Mississippi rivers in the central US for decades. In 2002, this effort was rewarded when biologists recaptured a fish that had been tagged an incredible 24 years before. x Millions of lake trout have been tagged with CWT and released into North America’s Great Lakes. In 2006, tagged lake trout were recovered 22 years after release. x

Since 1986, biologists at Hubbs-SeaWorld Research Institute in California have reared, tagged, and released more than a million white seabass to help rebuild the stocks of this popular sport fish. Seabass with CWT have been recovered 10 years after release, weighing over 17 pounds. x In the Pacific northwest of Canada and the US, over 1.1 billion hatchery coho and Chinook salmon have been released with CWT. Most coho return to spawn by age 3. However, CWT recoveries show that they often return at ages 5 and 6. The longer lived Chinook mainly return at age 5, but CWT data shows that there are still returns at age 7 and 8. x

This research, and many other programs around the world rely on Coded Wire Tags to identify and track aquatic organisms. Please contact us if we can help with yours.

Northwest Marine Technology, Inc.

Washington, USA

Corporate Office 360.468.3375 [email protected]

Biological Services 360.596.9400 [email protected]


Fisheries • vol 32 no 9 • september 2007 •


vol 32 no 9 september 2007

American Fisheries Society • editorial / subscription / circulation offices 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110 • Bethesda, MD 20814-2199 301/897-8616 • fax 301/897-8096 • [email protected] The American Fisheries Society (AFS), founded in 1870, is the oldest and largest professional society representing fisheries scientists. The AFS promotes scientific research and enlightened management of aquatic resources for optimum use and enjoyment by the public. It also encourages comprehensive education of fisheries scientists and continuing on-the-job training. AFS OFFICERS President Mary C. Fabrizio President Elect William G. Franzin First Vice President Donald C. Jackson Second Vice President Wayne A. Hubert Past President Jennifer L. Nielsen Executive Director Ghassan “Gus” N. Rassam

FISHERIES STAFF Senior Editor Ghassan “Gus” N. Rassam Director of Publications Aaron Lerner Managing Editor Beth Beard Production Editor Cherie Worth


Editors Science Editors Madeleine Hall-Arber Ken Ashley Doug Beard Ken Currens William E. Kelso Deirdre M. Kimball Robert T. Lackey Dennis Lassuy Allen Rutherford Book Review Editors Francis Juanes Ben Letcher Keith Nislow

Dues and fees for 2007 are $76 in North America ($88 elsewhere) for regular members, $19 in North America ($22 elsewhere) for student members, and $38 ($44) retired members. Fees include $19 for Fisheries subscription. Nonmember and library subscription rates are $106 ($127). Price per copy: $3.50 member; $6 nonmember. Fisheries (ISSN 0363-2415) is published monthly by the American Fisheries Society; 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110; Bethesda, MD 20814-2199 ©copyright 2007. Periodicals postage paid at Bethesda, Maryland, and at an additional mailing office. A copy of Fisheries Guide for Authors is available from the editor or the AFS website, If requesting from the managing editor, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed envelope with your request. Republication or systematic or multiple reproduction of material in this publication is permitted only under consent or license from the American Fisheries Society. Postmaster: Send address changes to Fisheries, American Fisheries Society; 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110; Bethesda, MD 20814-2199. Fisheries is printed on 10% post-consumer recycled paper with soy-based printing inks.

Advertising Index Advanced Telemetry Systems, Inc. . . 467 Flash Technology . . . . . . . . . . . 423 Floy Tag and Mfg., Inc. . . . . . . . . 447 Hallprint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443 Halltech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 449 Hydroacoustic Technology, Inc. . . . . 421 Lotek Wireless Inc. . . . . . . . . . . 453 Miller Net Company, Inc. . . . . . . . 451 Northwest Marine Technology, Inc. . . 418 O.S. Systems, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . 445 Smith-Root, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . 468

Contents COLUMN:


Ensuring Our Sustainable Future—A Plan of Work for 2007–2008 Fisheries in flux: How do we ensure our sustainable future? Mary C. Fabrizio

452 Steve A. Berkeley NEWS:






458 Guest Director’s line

Fisheries Currents:

424 Science News From AFS JOURNAL Highlights

425 Transactions of the American Fisheries Society Feature:

426 Conservation

Recovery Planning for Endangered Species Act-listed Pacific Salmon: Using Science to Inform Goals and Strategies A review of the range of analyses that form the scientific backbone of recovery plans being developed for Pacific salmon listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Thomas P. Good, Timothy J. Beechie, Paul McElhany, Michelle M. McClure, and Mary H. Ruckelshaus

Collaborative Science: Moving Ecosystem-Based Management Forward in Puget Sound The report—Sound Science: Synthesizing Ecological and Sociological Information about the Puget Sound Ecosystem­—describes in accessible language the connections among biotic, physical, and human elements of the ecosystem. Michelle McClure and Mary Ruckelshaus AFS 138th Annual Meeting

462 First Call for Papers Announcements:



441 History

Coho Salmon Are Native South of San Francisco Bay:A Reexamination of North American Coho Salmon’s Southern Range Limit Historical and current information demonstrates that the San Lorenzo River is the most reasonable southern limit of coho salmon, and those populations south of San Francisco Bay are native. Peter B. Adams, Louis W. Botsford, Kenneth W. Gobalet, Robert A. Leidy, Dennis R. McEwan, Peter B. Moyle, Jerry J. Smith, John G. Williams, and Ronald M. Yoshiyama

Sonotronics, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . 451


Vemco (Amirix Systems, Inc.) . . . . . 437 Vemco (Amirix Systems, Inc.) . . . . . 439 Tell advertisers you found them through Fisheries!


Cover: A salmon Technical Recovery Team site and field visit.

Fisheries • vol 32 no 9 • september 2007 •



Mary C. Fabrizio

AFS President Fabrizio can be contacted at [email protected]

Ensuring Our Sustainable Future— A Plan of Work for 2007–2008 I have watched with interest the development of a greater awareness of the state of our fishery resources among the public and scientists in general. That our resources are undergoing change is not in doubt, but the proximate and ultimate causes of that change are open for discussion, as is the degree of change in fish populations. Fisheries are in flux, and it is against this dynamic background that we must continue to find innovative ways of understanding the processes governing the persistence of resources as well as the consequences of perturbations we may introduce, whether intentional or not. I selected the theme “Fisheries in Flux: How Do We Ensure Our Sustainable Future?” because I wish to engage fishery professionals in a discussion about our future. My tenure as AFS president will be guided by steps we can take to ensure that we will be ready to address the scientific, policy, and human resource challenges that we will face in the coming years. In this column, I will outline how I believe we can best position ourselves as a professional society to promote the sustainability and sound stewardship of fisheries resources and aquatic ecosystems, to serve as a source of science-based information about fisheries and aquatic ecosystems, and to provide cost-efficient services in support of AFS members. The Society will accomplish these goals through various initiatives, strategies, and plans that constitute my Plan of Work for 2007–2008. When focused on “the things that really matter,” these activities will preserve our relevance and guide our progress. Initiatives to promote sustainable fisheries and water resources include enhancing partnerships with scientific institutions, seeking effective ways to inform environmental policy makers, and exchanging scientific information in 420

the international arena of the 5th World Fisheries Congress. The World Fisheries Congress, and other jointly-sponsored meetings, can serve as platforms from which publications, briefings, and policy statements on stewardship issues may be developed. Another initiative to promote aquatic stewardship can be realized through our partnership with stakeholders and resource management agencies to support and invigorate the work begun under the National Fish Habitat Action Plan, a successful effort to which we have long contributed.

Fisheries in Flux: How Do We Ensure Our Sustainable Future? During my year as president, I will continue to explore the use of electronic communications to permit rapid dissemination of high-quality scientific information among fishery professionals. The newly-formed Electronic Services Advisory Board (formerly, the AFS Web Editorial Advisory Board) will identify new electronic products that can enhance and improve Unit communication and function. The board will also investigate the use of electronic media for communicating fisheries information currently found in the “gray literature.” Such information is valuable and strengthens the knowledge base upon which we manage our resources. This tool, first identified by AFS Unit leaders, can serve as a mechanism to deliver fisheries and aquatic science information to fishery professionals working in remote areas or in parts of the world where one of the few links to science-based information is through the Internet.

The continuation of AFS as a society of fishery professionals will be achieved by maintaining our membership and by developing a cadre of new leaders to champion the needs of members. These initiatives are best assumed during times of financial health. Fortunately, in the past few years, the AFS reserve fund has undergone accelerated growth under the guidance and direction of AFS Executive Director Gus Rassam and AFS leaders on the Governing Board. AFS has recently begun to seriously consider how we may better serve our membership and I will continue to support those efforts. Some of these efforts are already underway, including the Spanish translation of Fisheries abstracts and the development of disaster relief procedures. I will also ensure leadership development opportunities for AFS members and seek to increase diversity among AFS leaders. Recognizing the need to enhance the fiduciary effectiveness of AFS Unit leaders, I will also promote sharing of successful strategies to improve the financial health of AFS Units. Finally, I will initiate a membership survey in the coming year with the purpose of providing AFS member input into the strategic planning process of the Society. The AFS Strategic Plan for 2005–2009 has successfully guided the activities of AFS leaders, but it is now time to consider steps towards the development of the next five-year plan. I believe that the strategic planning process must be coordinated with the membership survey to allow AFS to use up-to-date member input. This approach will ensure that our actions accurately reflect the current needs and desires of the membership. I look forward to a productive year as your president and welcome your comments and feedback.

Fisheries • vol 32 no 9 • september 2007 •

Fisheries • vol 32 no 9 • september 2007 •



Marine aquaculture competition The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has announced an open competition for up to $8 million in competitive grants in 2008–2009 through the National Marine Aquaculture Initiative. The grants will be awarded to demonstration projects and research to develop sustainable marine aquaculture in the United States. The deadline for preliminary proposals is 18 October 2007. The deadline for full proposals is 24 January 2008. Institutions of higher education, nonprofit organizations, commercial organizations, federal, state, local, and Indian tribal governments, and individuals are eligible to apply. Coordinated by the NOAA Aquaculture Program and NOAA’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, the 20082009 competition will consider aquaculture research and demonstration projects in near shore, open water, or terrestrial environments across a range of scientific disciplines. NOAA will fund individual projects ranging from approximately $200,000 to $1,000,000 for a 2-year period. It is anticipated that the agency will make approximately 20 awards, including up to 4 pilot-scale demonstration projects at or near the $1,000,000 level, and the remainder of projects at or about the $200,000 level. Funding priorities include: • Site-specific commercial/pilot scale demonstration projects to establish technical and economic feasibility with special emphasis on hatchery development, land based, near shore and offshore production systems; • Studies to assess environmental impacts of current marine aquaculture production systems and species including fish and shellfish; • Nutrition research involving alternative protein based diets and influence of diet on product quality; 422

• Development of environmental models and geographical information system (GIS) tools to aid site selection for new facilities; • Development of disease diagnostics and controls; • Development of hands-on training programs in marine hatchery operations and management; and • Development of synthesis research papers for the following topics: environmental impacts of marine production systems; alternative protein feeds and potential impacts; disease transmission from aquaculture to wild stocks and vice versa, and status of ecologically acceptable treatments and preventives; and genetic technologies and environmental risk analysis. To view the full announcement, including specifics on eligibility and the process for proposals, go to the Federal Register at html and search on “NOAA Aquaculture Grant Funds.” For more information on the NOAA Aquaculture Program, including profiles of the 2006 National Marine Aquaculture Initiative awards, go to: Fish hatchery rehabilitation project Battle Creek is a tributary to the upper Sacramento River that has historically supported substantial numbers of anadromous salmonids. However, since the early 1900s, much of Battle Creek’s water flow has been diverted through an extensive network of power generating facilities and diversions. Over the past

several years, substantial thought has been dedicated to the restoration of Battle Creek; almost $30 million has been spent on restoration projects already, including the Coleman National Fish Hatchery. The hatchery, with the support of CALFED agencies, is making environmentally sensitive and cost-effective modifications, viewed as a crucial step for the Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Project. The project proposes to restore 42 miles of fish habitat in Battle Creek and its tributaries upstream from the fish hatchery, while retaining most of the renewable energy production from the Battle Creek Hydroelectric Project. The proposed weir and ladder modification will allow more effective fish blockage and passage in Battle Creek. Minimally-invasive bypass structures were required for the construction of the barrier weir and fish ladder. Considering the environmental sensitivity of this project, portable dams were supplied by Portadam. Portadam technology can divert water by using a free-standing steel support system and impervious fabric membrane, creating a dry, safe place for construction. The dams can be used in up to 12 feet of water, allowing in-water construction to take place without the need for excavation, costly pile-driving equipment, and environmentally-destructive sandbag dikes. The portable dams are specifically designed to meet Federal Clean Water Regulations, allowing this restoration project to be completed while preserving the natural environment of Battle Creek.

Fisheries • vol 32 no 9 • september 2007 •

Fisheries • vol 32 no 9 • september 2007 •


Fisheries Currents: Science News From AFS

The Robert L. Kendall Best Paper in Transactions of the American Fisheries Society Forecasting the possible effects of climate change on migrating Pacific salmon populations has so far largely focused on juvenile salmon migrating downstream from streams to the ocean. In an awardwinning paper in the Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, a team of researchers from Oregon and British Columbia looked at the potential effects of changing water discharges and warming water temperatures on adult sockeye salmon swimming upstream to spawn in the Fraser River, British Columbia. A critical factor for salmon to successfully reach their spawning grounds is their energy reserves at the start of the run; sockeye salmon do not eat during their upstream migration. By sampling salmon at various points along the river to determine their energy reserves under different river flows and comparing those reserves against a model of future river discharge and temperature levels under climate change, the scientists were able to determine that declining river flows would offset the increased energy requirements of warmer water temperatures. However, the group also warns that higher water temperatures may bring increased disease problems and that changes in ocean circulation patterns predicted in some climate change scenarios may leave sockeye salmon with lower energy reserves with which to start their migration. Effects of River Discharge, Temperature, and Future Climates on Energetics and Mortality of Adult Migrating Fraser River Sockeye Salmon, by P.S. Rand, S.G. Hinch. J. Morrison, M.G.G. Foreman, M.J. McNutt, J.S. Macdonald, M.C. Healey, A.P. Farrell, and D.A. Higgs. Transactions 424

of the American Fisheries Society 135:655-667. Rand can be contacted at [email protected] The Mercer Patriarche Best Paper in the North American Journal of Fisheries Management Wetland enhancement programs seek to provide improved habitats for ducks, amphibians, and native plants across the western United States. Common practices include placing water control structures to keep the wetland wetter longer and providing permanent year-round connections to rivers. But are these newly improved habitats providing any benefits for fish? Freshwater emergent wetlands were not thought to get much use by juvenile salmon because of their seasonally low oxygen levels and potential for stranding fish when water levels recede. However, in an award-winning paper in the North American Journal of Fisheries Management, scientists from Oregon State University and the U.S. Geological Survey show that such wetlands may play a more important role for coho salmon than previously realized. The researchers set nets and traps to capture thousands of fish in six different habitats along the Chehalis River basin in Washington. Although the coho were only able to make use of the wetlands a few weeks a year before being driven away by low oxygen levels, those young coho found in the enhanced wetlands had better growth and survival than those found in unenhanced wetlands or oxbow ponds. The researchers conclude that wetland enhancement and restoration programs can be part of broader efforts to sustain naturally-produced coho salmon. Juvenile Salmonid Use of Freshwater Emergent Wetlands in the Floodplain and Its Implications for

Conservation Management, by Julie A. Henning, Robert E. Gresswell, and Ian A. Fleming. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 26:367-376. Henning can be contacted at [email protected] Best Paper in the Journal of Aquatic Animal Health Infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus (IHNV) may not be as well known as other wildlife diseases like rabies and bird flu, but it has afflicted already struggling wild salmon and trout populations in the Pacific Northwest. One puzzling aspect of the disease, however, is how the various strains of the virus seem to affect each fish species differently. In an award winning paper in the Journal of Aquatic Animal Health, scientists from the University of Washington and the U.S. Geological Survey genetically classified isolates of IHNV into three major groups – U, M, and L strains. Rainbow trout, sockeye salmon, and kokanee (landlocked sockeye) were exposed to seven strains of IHNV from the U and M groups to compare their pathogenicity. While the sockeye and kokanee were much more susceptible to the U than the M virus groups, the opposite was true of rainbow trout. The researchers theorize that the M group virus may have made a relatively recent “jump” to rainbow trout, and in doing so, lost its virulence to its original host species. A comparison of the virus surface proteins reveals that three changes in the “G” gene sequence may be at least partially responsible the differing virulence between the U and M IHNV virus groups. Future studies may uncover the mechanism involved how the Continued on page 456

Fisheries • vol 32 no 9 • september 2007 •

JOURNAL Highlights Transactions of the American Fisheries Society

Volume 136 Issue 4 July 2007

To subscribe to AFS journals go to and click on Publications/Journals. Invasion by Nonnative Brook Trout in Panther Creek, Idaho: Roles of Local Habitat Quality, Biotic Resistance, and Connectivity to Source Habitats. Joseph R. Benjamin, Jason B. Dunham, and Matthew R. Dare, pages 875-888. Application of Discrete Choice Models to Predict White Crappie Temperature Selection in Two Missouri Impoundments. Przemyslaw G. Bajer, Joshua J. Millspaugh, and Robert S. Hayward, pages 889-901. [Note] Evolution of Mitochondrial DNA Variation within and among Yukon River Chum Salmon Populations. Blair G. Flannery, John K. Wenburg, and Anthony J. Gharrett, pages 902-910. [Note] Variation of Amplified Fragment Length Polymorphisms in Yukon River Chum Salmon: Population Structure and Application to Mixed-Stock Analysis. Blair G. Flannery, John K. Wenburg, and Anthony J. Gharrett, pages 911-925. Genetic Investigation of Natural Hybridization between Rainbow and Coastal Cutthroat Trout in the Copper River Delta, Alaska. Ian Williams, Gordon H. Reeves, Sara L. Graziano, and Jennifer L. Nielsen, pages 926-942. An Evaluation of the Relative Influence of Habitat Complexity and Habitat Stability on Fish Assemblage Structure in Unregulated and Regulated Reaches of a Large Southeastern Warmwater Stream. Colin P. Shea and James T. Peterson, pages 943-958. [Note] Population Dynamics of a June Sucker Refuge Population. Eric J. Billman and Todd A. Crowl, pages 959-965. [Note] Previously Undocumented Two-Year Freshwater Residency of Juvenile Coho Salmon in Prairie Creek, California. Ethan Bell and Walter G. Duffy, pages 966-970. [Note] Movement Responses of Stream Fishes to Introduced Corridors of Complex Cover. James H. Roberts and Paul L. Angermeier, pages 971-978. [Note] Predictive Morphometric Relationships for Estimating Fecundity of Sea Lampreys from Lake Champlain and Other Landlocked Populations. Stephen J. Smith and J. Ellen Marsden, pages 979-987. [Note] Seasonal Trends in Abundance and Size of Juvenile American Shad, Hickory Shad, and Blueback Herring in the St. Johns River, Florida, and Comparison with Historical Data. Nicholas A. Trippel, Micheal S. Allen, and Richard S. McBride, pages 988-993. [Note] Validation of Endoscopy for Determination of Maturity in Small Salmonids and Sex of Mature Individuals. Erica A. Swenson, Amanda E. Rosenberger, and Philip J. Howell, pages 994-998. The Sandbar Shark Summer Nursery within Bays and Lagoons of the Eastern Shore of Virginia. Christina L. Conrath and John A. Musick, pages 999-1007. On the Use of Cyprinid Scales in the Diet Analysis of Piscivorous Species: How Much Information Is Hidden in a Fish Scale? Rafael Miranda and M. Carmen Escala, pages 1008-1017. Genetic and Environmental Influences on Life History Traits in Lake Trout. Jenni L. McDermid, Peter E. Ihssen, William N. Sloan, and Brian J. Shuter, pages 1018-1029. Direct and Indirect Estimates of Natural Mortality for Chesapeake Bay Blue Crab. David A. Hewitt, Debra M. Lambert, John M. Hoenig, Romuald N. Lipcius, David B. Bunnell, and Thomas J. Miller, pages 1030-1040. [Forum] Extirpation of Red Shiner in Direct Tributaries of Lake Texoma (Oklahoma–Texas): A Cautionary Case History from a Fragmented River–Reservoir System. William J. Matthews and Edie Marsh-Matthews, pages 1041-1062. Patterns of Habitat Use among Vegetation-Dwelling Littoral Fishes in the Atchafalaya River Basin, Louisiana. John P. Troutman, D. Allen Rutherford, and W. E. Kelso, pages 1063-1075. Morphological Differences Between Adult Wild and First-Generation Hatchery Upper Yakima River Spring Chinook Salmon. Craig Busack, Curtis M. Knudsen, Germaine Hart, and Paul Huffman, pages 1076-1087.

Fisheries • vol 32 no 9 • september 2007 •

Relationships between Productivity, Physical Habitat, and Aquatic Invertebrate and Vertebrate Populations of Forest Streams: An Information-Theoretic Approach. P. M. Kiffney and P. Roni, pages 1088-1103. Diel Behavior of Adult Striped Bass Using Tailwater Habitat as Summer Refuge. Shawn P. Young and J. Jeffery Isely, pages 1104-1112. Comparative Thermal Requirements of Westslope Cutthroat Trout and Rainbow Trout: Implications for Species Interactions and Development of Thermal Protection Standards. Elizabeth A. Bear, Thomas E. McMahon, and Alexander V. Zale, pages 1113-1121.

Special Section: Systematics and Fisheries Management Exploring Links between Systematics and Fisheries Management. Jay R. Stauffer, Jr. and Patrick M. Kocovsky, pages 1122-1125. Species Concepts and Their Importance in Fisheries Management and Research. E. O. Wiley, pages 1126-1135. Taxonomy: A Precursor to Understanding Ecological Interactions among Schistosomes, Snail Hosts, and Snail-Eating Fishes. Jay Richard Stauffer, Jr., Henry Madsen, Adrianus Konings, Paul Bloch, Cecilia Paola Ferreri, Jeremy Likongwe, Kenneth R. McKaye, and Kristin E. Black, pages 1136-1145. Species Distinction and the Biodiversity Crisis in Lake Victoria. F. Witte, J. H. Wanink, and M. Kishe-Machumu, pages 1146-1159. Introduced Species: What Species Do You Have and How Do You Know? Walter R. Courtenay, Jr., pages 1160-1164.

Aquatic Stewardship Education in Theory and Practice Barbara A. Knuth and William F. Siemer, editors. This topical book presents the most current thinking about how to define, foster, and evaluate desirable aquatic stewardship behaviors as well as how to develop the educational programs and other motivating forces underlying such behaviors. This effort represents a partnership among academics, aquatic resource educators, fishery management professionals, and the fishing and boating industries to develop a shared understanding of desired characteristics of aquatic resource stewardship. 187 pages List price: $60 AFS Member price: $42 Item Number: 540.55P Published April 2007 TO ORDER: Online: and click on “Bookstore” American Fisheries Society c/o Books International P.O. Box 605 Herndon, VA 20172 Phone: 703/661-1570 Fax: 703/996-1010


Feature: Conservation Recovery Planning for Endangered Species Act-listed Pacific Salmon: Using Science to Inform Goals and Strategies ABSTRACT: Endangered and threatened populations of Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) in the United States span major freshwater and marine ecosystems from southern California to northern Washington. Their wide-ranging habits and anadromous life history exposes them to a variety of risk factors and influences, including hydropower operations, ocean and freshwater harvest, habitat degradation, releases of hatchery-reared salmon, variable ocean productivity, toxic contaminants, density-dependent effects, and a suite of native and non-native predators and competitors. We review the range of analyses that form the scientific backbone of recovery plans being developed for Pacific salmon listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. This process involves: identifying the appropriate conservation units (demographically independent Evolutionarily Significant Units [ESUs] and their populations), developing viability criteria for Pacific salmon populations and overall ESUs, and using coarse-resolution habitat analyses and life-cycle modeling to identify likely consequences of alternative actions proposed to achieve recovery. Adopting this wide breadth of analyses represents a necessary strategy for recovering Pacific salmon and a model for conservation planning for other wide-ranging species.

Plan de recuperación para el salmón del Pacífico dentro del Acta de Especies Amenazadas: la ciencia como medio para informar metas y estrategias Resumen: En los Estados Unidos, las poblaciones amenazadas y en peligro de extinción del salmón del Pacífico (Oncorhynchus spp.) pasan buena parte de su ciclo de vida tanto en ecosistemas de agua dulce como marinos desde el sur de California hasta el norte de Washington. Los hábitos e historia de vida propios de su condición anadrómica los expone a una variedad de influencias y factores de riesgo tales como operaciones asociadas a la obtención de energía hidráulica, pesca marina y dulceacuícola, degradación de hábitat, liberación de salmones cultivados, variaciones en la productividad oceánica, contaminantes tóxicos, efectos de denso-dependencia y una extensa gama de competidores y depredadores nativos y foráneos. Se hace una revisión de los enfoques medulares de los planes que se están desarrollando para la recuperación del salmón del Pacífico, enlistado en el Acta de Especies Amenazadas. Este proceso incluye: identificar apropiadamente las unidades de conservación (Unidades Evolutivas Significativas Demográficamente Independientes—ESU, por sus siglas en inglésy sus poblaciones) desarrollar criterios de viabilidad para las poblaciones y ESUs de salmón y aplicar análisis de baja resolución de hábitat y modelación del ciclo de vida para identificar posibles consecuencias de las acciones alternativas que se proponen para lograr la recuperación. La adopción de esta extensa serie de análisis representa una estrategia necesaria para la recuperación del salmón del Pacífico y un paradigma para planear la conservación de especies de distribución y hábitos similares. 426

Thomas P. Good, Timothy J. Beechie, Paul McElhany, Michelle M. McClure, and Mary H. Ruckelshaus The authors are research fishery biologists for NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, Washington. Good can be contacted at [email protected] Introduction Depressed populations of fish species in general, and anadromous salmonids in particular, pose special challenges in terms of planning for their recovery and conservation. Their wide-ranging migration patterns and unique life histories take them across ecosystem and management boundaries in an increasingly fragmented world, which creates the need for analyses and strategies at similarly large scales. Recovery planning for any species must necessarily include scientific analyses of factors that limit, impair, or enhance recovery against a backdrop of management, policy, and societal realities. For Pacific salmon listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is the federal agency that has been mandated to (1) identify the (groups of) populations whose status is threatened or endangered, and (2) to gather the scientific information that guides the policy decision process. However, clearly demarcating the boundary between the guidance and the decision can be a formidable task. In this article, we illustrate how science is being used to inform recovery planning for Pacific salmon in the western continental United States by presenting examples of scientific analyses that underpin recovery goals and strategies implemented by regional planning and local watershed groups. We believe that the suite of analytical tools and approaches that form the backbone of NMFS recovery planning for Pacific salmon provides a valuable model for efforts to recover and conserve other wide-ranging species. The Challenge: the plight of Pacific salmon Seven species of anadromous Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) occur in North America with geographic ranges

Fisheries • vol 32 no 9 • september 2007 •

occurring throughout the north Pacific from Russia, Japan, and Korea across to the west coast of the United States and Canada, from Alaska to southern California. Within the 6 species under its jurisdiction, NMFS/NOAA Fisheries has designated 52 evolutionarily significant units (ESUs; Waples 1991) of west coast Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha; Myers et al. 1998), coho salmon (O. kisutch; Weitkamp et al. 1995), chum salmon (O. keta; Johnson et al. 1997), pink salmon (O. gorbuscha; Hard et al. 1996), sockeye salmon (O. nerka; Gustafson et al. 1997), and steelhead trout (O. mykiss; Busby et al. 1996). Half of the 52 ESUs are substantially reduced in abundance relative to historical levels (Good et al. 2005) and are listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA (Table 1). In addition, a large number of populations and some entire ESUs have been extirpated by the construction of impassable dams

(NRC 1996, Gustafson et al. 2007). The genetic legacy of these populations and ESUs is largely lost, and most of these areas upstream of these dams continue to be inaccessible to anadromous salmonids. For the remaining extant populations, recent estimates of spawners generally range from < 1% to 76 % of historical abundance, and these estimates are considerably less when limited to natural-origin fish (Table 1). Recent extinction risk analyses estimate that 84% of the populations within ESA-listed Columbia River basin ESUs are not currently self-sustaining (McClure et al. 2003a). The scope of ESA listings is considerable, spanning almost every major freshwater ecosystem from the Sacramento River in California northward to the Canadian border (Schiewe and Kareiva 2000). Generally, ESU status is more imperiled in the southern regions and in the interiors of large watersheds such as the Sacramento-

San Joaquin drainage and the Columbia River Basin (Good et al. 2005; Gustafson et al. 2007). Pacific salmon life history Pacific salmon are anadromous, migrating to the ocean as juveniles and back to freshwater as spawning adults. Consequently, they traverse environments and habitats in multiple ecosystems—open ocean, estuaries, rivers, and tributaries in coastal, montane, and desert habitats—and cover substantial geographical areas during their life cycle (reviewed in Groot and Margolis 1991). The freshwater phase of their life cycle, from eggs in the gravel to emergent fry and parr, occurs in lakes and streams up to thousands of kilometers from the sea. Considerable life history variation exists in the freshwater phase among and within species; Chinook salmon juve-

Table 1. Recovery planning domain, Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing status, and recent return levels of threatened (T) and endangered (E) Pacific salmon and steelhead evolutionarily significant units. Recent returns of total (wild and hatchery-origin) or natural-origin (wild) spawners are calculated as % of historic (ca. 1900) abundance estimates; ranges are from upper and lower estimates of historic abundance. Data were compiled by NMFS/NOAA fisheries for the Pacific Coast Salmon Research Fund (PCSRF 2005). Recovery planning domain Evolutionarily significant unit Recent total returns Recent wild returns (ESA listing status) (% of historic) (% of historic) Puget Sounda Ozette Lake sockeye (T) 13.1–17.5 6.6–8.8 Puget Sound Chinook (T) 5.9 –7.9 3.0–4.0 Hood Canal summer-run chum (T) 35.0–45.0 10.5–13.5 Upper Willamette River/ Lower Columbia River Lower Columbia River Chinook (T) 5.7–7.5 2.8–3.8 Upper Willamette River Chinook (T) 19.6 - 25.1 3.9–5.0 Lower Columbia River coho (T) Columbia River chum (T) 0.4–0.5 0.4–0.5 Lower Columbia River steelhead (T) 2.5–3.2 1.7–2.2 Upper Willamette River steelhead (T) 3.3–4.3 2.5–3.2 Interior Columbia River Snake River sockeye (E) 0.1–0.2c – Snake River fall-run Chinook (T) 1.6–2.0 0.6–0.8 Snake River spring/summer-run Chinook (T) 4.0–5.2 0.8–1.0 Upper Columbia River spring-run Chinook (E) 11.8–14.9 5.9–7.4 Middle Columbia River steelhead (T) 19.2–24.4 13.4–17.1 Snake River basin steelhead (T) 45.8–65.0 6.9–9.1 Upper Columbia River steelhead (T) 59.5–76.5 11.9–15.3 Oregon Coast Oregon Coast coho (T b ) 7.1– 9.3 6.7–8.8 Southern Oregon/Northern California Coasts S. Oregon/N. California Coasts coho (T) 4.1–5.4 4.1–5.4d North-Central California Coast California Coastal Chinook (T) – 5.2–6.8e Central California Coast coho (E) .no data no data.-30-30 Northern California steelhead (T) – 1.5–1.9f Central California Coast steelhead (T) .no data .no data California Central Valley Sacramento River winter-run Chinook (E) – 2.8–3.6d Central Valley spring-run Chinook (T) – 21.0– 27.0d California Central Valley steelhead (T) – 0.1–0.2d, f Southern California Coast South Central California Coast steelhead (T) .no data .no data Southern California steelhead (E) .no data .no data a NMFS listed Puget Sound steelhead as threatened under the U.S. Endangered Species Act on 11 May 2007. b Proposed threatened c All progeny from captive broodstock d Natural-origin/hatchery-origin ratio unknown e Dam counts of wild fish on South Fork Eel River (1938–1975) as proxy for ESU f Dam counts of total fish at Red Bluff Diversion Dam as proxy for ESU

Fisheries • vol 32 no 9 • september 2007 •


niles, for example, may spend one or more years in freshwater before heading to sea (stream type) or may move to the ocean in their first year (ocean type; Healey 1991; Brannon et al. 2004a). Juveniles then undergo a physiological transformation (smoltification) and undertake a seaward migration. At sea, individuals can traverse thousands of kilometers during extensive oceanic migrations, while others spend their entire ocean residence on the continental shelf. After a few months to several years, adult salmon return to the river where they were born, where most spawn and die (semelparous) and the cycle begins again, although many steelhead trout are iteroparous and, if they survive, can spawn multiple times (Groot and Margolis 1991). During their peregrinations, Pacific salmon experience a variety of physical, chemical, and biological conditions that can affect their survival and productivity (Stouder et al. 1997), many of which have contributed to their decline and influence their recovery. The orthodox explanation for the depressed nature of their present status has focused on core anthropogenic factors—commercial and recreational harvest, habitat degradation, hatchery fish production, and hydropower operations. Intense harvest certainly reduced some salmon populations beginning as early as the late nineteenth century (NRC 1996). Habitat degradation in the form of urbanization, agricultural development, reduced water quality and quantity, and increased road density are associated with reductions in population productivity, adult densities, and early life-stage production for Chinook and coho salmon over large geographic areas (Paulsen and Fisher 2001; Pess et al. 2002). Hatchery programs may impact wild populations by increasing harvest rates in mixed-stock fisheries and imposing potential negative genetic and ecological interactions (Williams et al. 1999; but see Brannon et al. 2004b). Hydropower operations have dramatically altered the riverine environment and directly and indirectly reduced survival of juvenile salmon during their seaward migration and subsequent return of adults spawning upriver of dams (Schaller et al. 1999; Levin and Tolimieri 2001). In addition, density-dependent effects (Zabel et al. 2006); variability in ocean productivity (Mantua et al. 1997; Welch et al. 2000); climatic cycles such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (Hare 428

and Francis 1995); predation by fish (Friesen and Ward 1999), marine mammals (NMFS 1997), and birds (Roby et al. 2003; Good et al. 2007); and interactions with non-indigenous species (Fresh 1997) influence survival and productivity of Pacific salmon. All of these factors vary across the landscape, and their impacts at the species, ESU, and life history levels reflect variation in the use of freshwater, estuarine, and marine ecosystems over the life cycle (NRC 1996; Ruckelshaus et al. 2002b). Such characteristics and circumstances pose significant challenges for scientists conducting research in support of conservation planning for wideranging Pacific salmon. The Strategy: LARGE-SCALE recovery planning for ESA-listed Pacific salmon In the course of navigating many environments over their life cycle, Pacific salmon cross a number of management boundaries. The international, federal, state, tribal, and local agencies responsible for managing Pacific salmon have overlapping jurisdictions and mandates with respect to recovery of threatened and endangered Pacific salmon. For salmon populations whose natal rivers are in the United States, NMFS is charged with recovery of those that are listed under the Endangered Species Act and is responsible for developing recovery plans (the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has jurisdiction over generally non-anadromous cutthroat trout O. clarki and bull trout Salvelinus confluentus, species whose spawning and juvenile rearing distributions often overlap with those of anadromous Pacific salmon, as well as over rainbow trout, the resident form of O. mykiss). The strategy of the recovery planning process has thus been to confront the large-scale biological and management challenges by incorporating of relevant scientific information at similarly large scales and involving co-managers from other federal, state, tribal, and local government agencies and other stakeholders (Boersma et al. 2001). Recovery plans outline delisting criteria which, when achieved, would allow the NMFS to delist the ESU. Delisting criteria are based in part on scientific guidance on population and ESU viability and the likely impacts of actions in associated habitat, hatchery, harvest, and hydropower

sectors. Final determinations of delisting criteria involve additional policy judgments of the acceptable risk of extinction and certainty in the effectiveness of actions aimed at promoting recovery (McElhany et al. 2000; Ruckelshaus and Darm 2006). In contrast, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) mandates a non-governmental scientific group (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada [COSEWIC]) to conduct biological assessments of risk for Pacific salmon that are separate from the socioeconomic consequences of listing as part of a two-step process to list species under the Species at Risk Act (SARA). While this system could conceivably lead to more species being considered for listing, the formal segregation can result in species on a biological status list not being on the SARA legal list and receiving legal protection (Irvine et al. 2005). Species listed under SARA also require “recovery strategies” and “action plans” that describe threats, population objectives, and research and management objectives and that outline measures to implement the recovery strategy, respectively (Irvine et al. 2005). In this article, we focus on the scientific guidance part of these efforts in the continental United States, by illustrating the ways that scientific analyses are informing recovery planning for Pacific salmon under the ESA. Recovery plans for threatened and endangered Pacific salmon within the continental United States are being developed in eight geographic regions or recovery planning domains, each of which has three to six ESA-listed salmon and steelhead ESUs (Figure 1). What constitutes recovery may vary among ESUs but will generally involve improvements in abundance, productivity, spatial distribution, and diversity of existing populations sufficient to recover their health and ensure their long-term sustainability. For each recovery-planning domain, an interdisciplinary Technical Recovery Team (TRT) is composed of technical experts in salmon biology, population dynamics, conservation biology, ecology, and conservation planning. These experts come from inside and outside of NMFS and are appointed by NMFS via a nomination process. The TRT is charged with developing biologically-based delisting criteria and providing technical guidance for recovery of all ESUs within its domain, specifically (1) identifying conservation

Fisheries • vol 32 no 9 • september 2007 •

units appropriate to the stated conservation goals (Ruckelshaus et al. 2002a), (2) defining viability criteria for salmonid populations and ESUs (McElhany et al. 2000), and (3) identifying likely consequences of alternative actions proposed for achieving recovery (e.g., Beechie et al. 2003a). Below, we provide examples of the breadth of analyses conducted by federal, state, and tribal scientists that form the scientific backbone for the recovery plans being developed for Pacific salmon. Estimating status of ESUs and populations The first step in recovery planning is assessing the present status of the species. For Pacific salmon, assessments of the relative status of ESUs and the populations which comprise each of them are necessary to prioritize populations for recovery and conservation actions (Allendorf et al. 1997). As Pacific salmon spend part of their life cycle ranging throughout the north Pacific Ocean, identifying population units associated with their freshwater spawning areas is very important for conservation planning. For Pacific salmon, NMFS defined an independent population following Ricker’s (1972) definition of a stock. In the context of viable salmonid populations, “not interbreeding to a substantial degree” means that two groups are considered independent populations if they are isolated to such an extent that exchanges of individuals (i.e., migration among populations) do not substantially affect their population dynamics or extinction risk over a 100year time period (McElhany et al. 2000). For extant populations, one can examine extinction risks from intrinsic factors such as demographic, genetic, or local environmental stochasticity; defined populations can be used for modeling extinction risk and identifying recovery strategies at the appropriate scale (McElhany et al. 2000). The TRTs have identified demographically independent populations for Pacific salmon ESUs based on a variety of geographical, ecological, genetic, and life history data. Within an ESU, the number of independent populations ranges from 1 to 30. For example, the Lower Columbia and Upper Willamette River TRT identified 17 historical winter-run steelhead populations based upon information on run-timing, passage barriers, and genetics

(Figure 2). A similar process for population identification has been conducted for Chinook salmon, chum salmon, coho salmon, and steelhead ESUs in recovery team domains in the Lower Columbia and Upper Willamette rivers (Myers et al. 2006), Puget Sound (Ruckelshaus et al. 2006), the interior Columbia River basin (McClure et al. 2003b), the Oregon coast (Lawson et al. 2004), the southern Oregon/northern California coasts (Williams et al. 2006), north-central California coast (Bjorkstedt et al. 2005), the central valley of California (Lindley et al. 2004, 2006), and the south-central/ southern California coast (Boughton et al. 2006). Designing viability criteria Population viability For Pacific salmon, criteria for viable salmonid populations (VSP) are based upon measures of population characteristics that reasonably predict extinction risk and reflect processes important to populations: (1) abundance, (2) productivity, (3) diversity, and (4) spatial structure (McElhany et al. 2000). Abundance is critical as small populations are generally at greater risk of extinction than large populations. Stage-specific or lifetime productivity (i.e., population growth rate) provides information on important demographic processes. Abundance and productivity data are used to assess the status of populations of threatened and endangered ESUs (Good et al. 2005). Genotypic and phenotypic diversity are important in that they allow species/ESUs to use a wide array of environments, respond to short-term changes in the environment, and survive long-term environmental change. Spatial structure reflects how abundance is distributed among available or potentially available habitats and how it can affect overall extinction risk and evolutionary processes that may alter a population’s ability to respond to environmental change. For the purposes of estimating risk for Pacific salmon populations, NMFS considers a 95% probability of persistence in 100 years as their basic definition of viability. The TRTs also included a range of persistence probabilities (e.g., from 50–99%) in their population viability analyses to show how different levels of acceptable population risk change abundance and productivity requirements for populations

Fisheries • vol 32 no 9 • september 2007 •

(Ruckelshaus et al. 2002a; Cooney et al. 2005; McElhany et al. 2006). ESU viability Viability criteria for Pacific salmon ESUs rely on determining how many and which populations need to be at a particular status for the ESU as a whole to have an acceptably low extinction risk. In general, an assessment of an ESU as being viable will be more likely if it contains multiple populations (metapopulations), some of which meet viability criteria. Viability of the ESU is also more likely if: populations are geographically widespread but some are close enough together to facilitate connectivity, populations do not all share common catastrophic risks, and populations display diverse life-histories and phenotypes (McElhany et al. 2000). Establishing conservation priorities among populations within an ESU may involve difficult decisions about which life history traits should have primacy in the prioritization process, and, in extreme cases, deciding whether some populations play redundant roles in ESU viability (Ruckelshaus et al. 2004). Demographic models alone do not capture the likely buffering effects of life history and genetic diversity among populations on ESU persistence. Thus, ESU-level diversity concerns have been incorporated by stratifying ESUs into historical diversity groups that need protection. One way to estimate major diversity groups that have been lost due to population extinction is to relate salmon diversity to environmental characteristics. For example, life history traits of Puget Sound Chinook salmon are correlated with hydrologic regime; “stream-type” fish, which spend one or more years as juveniles in freshwater and perform extensive offshore oceanic migrations, are associated with a snowmelt-dominated hydrograph (Beechie et al. 2006a; Figure 3). Spawning areas with this hydrograph pattern are confined to upper reaches of main river basins, where mean elevation is high and most winter precipitation is stored as snow until spring. However, as dams block access to many historical high-elevation spawning grounds, extant stream-type populations are currently restricted to a small area of northeastern Puget Sound. The conservation-planning implications of this are two-fold. First, these remaining streamtype populations are now recognized in the recovery planning process as hav429

Figure 1. Recovery planning domains for Pacific salmon ESUs in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California.


Fisheries • vol 32 no 9 • september 2007 •

ing considerable conservation value and being at relatively high risk owing to their proximity to each other. Second, restoring stream-type populations to other snowmelt rivers in which they historically occurred is a desirable conservation goal. Such a goal appears to be feasible, as ocean-type populations likely retain a genetic composition that allows rapid re-emergence of the stream-type form (Waples et al. 2004), and Chinook salmon life history traits can diverge rapidly in transplanted populations (Unwin et al. 2000). Still, efforts to re-establish Chinook salmon populations where they have previously been extirpated are relatively recent, and some caution must be maintained relative to the potential for success of such projects. Incorporating the spatial structure of populations is also important to designing ESU viability criteria. In particular, the collection of extant, healthy popula-

tions within an ESU ought to be spatially arranged to buffer against catastrophic losses (> 50% mortality in one year; Reed et al. 2003) due to natural disasters or anthropogenic events. Formal consideration of catastrophic losses has led to innovative recovery strategies for the southern sea otter and the short-tailed albatross (Ralls et al. 1996; USFWS 2005). The potential impacts of catastrophic events can be incorporated into the recovery planning process by assessing catastrophic risk levels among populations and spreading risks spatially among populations and life history types. The relative risks from catastrophic events were summarized for populations of Puget Sound Chinook salmon by combining available spatial information on various events (e.g., landslides) with salmon spawning, rearing, and migratory habitat (Figure 4). Combined assessments for eight

natural and anthropogenic catastrophic risks were spatially correlated; that is, overall risk scores were more similar within geographic regions than among geographic regions. More importantly, analyses tested spatial arrangements of populations recommended by the Puget Sound TRT for ESU viability. Risk scores for population combinations selected according to recommendations (≥ 2 viable populations from each of 5 geographic regions, including “early-run” and “late-run” Chinook life histories where possible) were lower on average than combinations of 10 populations selected at random (Good et al. in press). The strategy of spreading the risk implicit in the TRT recommendations simultaneously minimized risk of catastrophic loss and maximized representation of the less common “early-run” life history type. Similar assessments of natural and anthropogenic catastrophic risks for ESUs

Figure 2. Demographically independent populations of the Lower Columbia River steelhead evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) within the Willamette/Lower Columbia rivers recovery domain (from Myers et al. 2006). The 17 historical winter populations were delineated based on geography, migration fidelity, genetic attributes, life history patterns and morphological characteristics, population dynamics, and environmental and habitat characteristics.

Fisheries • vol 32 no 9 • september 2007 •


in the Willamette and lower Columbia rivers (Good and Fabbri 2003) were used to determine the number and identity of population/life history combinations necessary to spread risk and promote ESUlevel viability (McElhany et al. 2003). Such approaches formalize the incorporation of spatial structure and diversity into recovery planning for Pacific salmon. Identifying consequences of recovery actions Wide-ranging species such as Pacific salmon pose a particular challenge to identifying recovery actions. There are many places in their life cycle where threats occur, and identifying the stage(s) where an improvement in survival can be most Figure 3. Mean (+1 SE) life history phenotypes of Chinook salmon populations spawning in rivers with rainfall-dominated, snowmeltdominated, or transitional hydrograph patterns: A—Mean date of spawning. B—Percent of smolts age 1+. C—Mean age of spawners. Where the main effect of hydrograph type was significant at α = 0.05, different letters indicate significant pairwise differences between groups based on Tukey tests for multiple comparisons (adapted from Beechie et al. 2006a). Sample sizes are given within bars.

effective at increasing population viability can be difficult. Two main analytical approaches to this dilemma have been employed for Pacific salmon: broad-scale threats analyses and life-cycle modeling. Analyses of the relative magnitude and distribution of threats to Pacific salmon throughout their entire geographic range can be illuminated using statistical models (Hoekstra et al. in press). Analyses performed at a regional scale to identify where habitat-forming processes (e.g., sediment supply rates, riparian growth, stream temperature and flow regimes) are impaired provide information over large geographic areas that guide the scale and location of recovery actions (Beechie and Bolton 1999; Beechie et al. 2003a). Life cycle models inform prioritization of actions, helping to identify which parts of the life cycle are most affected by limiting factors (e.g., habitat impairment). Both types of analyses can be conducted at coarse scales to focus on geographic areas and types of habitat problems that warrant further analysis or at smaller spatial scales (e.g., within populations or watersheds), where more detailed data can identify and prioritize site-specific restoration actions (Steel et al. 2003). Broad-scale habitat analyses In the interior Columbia River basin, where seven salmon and steelhead ESUs are listed as threatened or endangered, broad-scale analyses of habitat-forming processes have shown patterns of change in process rates (e.g., supply of sediment, stream discharge) or their controlling factors (e.g., riparian conditions; McClure et al. 2004). Process rate patterns, which are mainly a function of topography, soil type, vegetation cover, and land uses, illustrate the relative degree of human impact on processes. This process-based approach, by recognizing natural spatial variation in processes that form and sustain aquatic ecosystems (i.e., that the historical template of Pacific salmon habitat is not uniform throughout their range), explicitly identifies causes of habitat change. The analyses illustrate where specific land uses have altered habitat-forming processes across the landscape and where and what types of restoration actions are needed for sustainable recovery of salmon habitats. Site-specific actions are identified through field inventories (e.g., restoring riparian function along a single reach; Beechie et


al. 2003b); however, the broad-scale analyses help to target these field inventories to areas where specific types of habitat degradation are most likely to have occurred and identify areas with significant opportunities for habitat improvement (Figure 5). Currently, recovery plans for interior Columbia basin ESUs are being developed considering both local information for site-specific actions, and broad-scale analyses to develop ESU-scale recovery scenarios. Understanding where Pacific salmon occurred historically across the landscape, but have become extinct, is also useful for prioritizing potential restoration projects. Broad-scale analyses of the intrinsic potential of salmon habitat have been conducted for adult spawning and juvenile rearing for interior Columbia River basin and Puget Sound ESUs. The analyses rely on field-based information that associates landscape characteristics such as stream gradient, width, and land cover with spawner or juvenile density; the relationships are then extrapolated to stream reaches that have not been surveyed for salmon and steelhead or that are currently inaccessible (Cooney and Holzer 2004) and used to identify and prioritize habitat areas for conservation actions. For example, in the upper Yakima River basin, nearly 500 stream km (56% of the historically accessible streams) are accessible to anadromous fishes, but access to areas with habitat most suitable for steelhead spawning is almost entirely blocked, leaving only relatively low-suitability mainstem areas available for spawning and rearing. In Puget Sound watersheds, broad-scale assessments of stream channel characteristics revealed landscape-scale changes from anthropogenic barriers and changes in riparian condition (Davies et al. 2007), changes which have reduced the adult spawning and juvenile rearing potential in most watersheds supporting Puget Sound Chinook salmon. Intrinsic potential analyses highlight how important it is for Pacific salmon to have access to areas of naturally high suitability (McClure et al. 2004). These analyses have helped conservation planners set protection and restoration goals, develop recovery strategies to address impairments to population-level spatial structure and diversity in the interior Columbia River basin (e.g., Oregon Mid-Columbia steelhead draft recovery plan; www.dfw.state., and evaluate land-use restoration and protection sce-

Fisheries • vol 32 no 9 • september 2007 •

narios in Puget Sound watersheds (Bartz et al. 2006; Scheuerell et al. 2006). Life-cycle modeling The potential significance of specific recovery actions to populations can be evaluated by exploring the potential effects of the recovery actions in a lifecycle context. This is particularly important for populations and ESUs that are experiencing impacts other than habitat degradation. Such analyses can evaluate the relative importance of varying recovery actions at the scale of ESUs, or they may more closely examine the effect of specific recovery strategies at the scale of populations. In the simplest cases, considering overall population productivity allows the effect of a change in survival at one life stage to be evaluated in the context of overall viability. Detailed life cycle modeling can estimate the effects under more stringent conditions or identify portions of the life cycle where improvements to Pacific salmon survival or population capacity might have the greatest impact on population status. One of the primary uses of life-cycle modeling is to assess the effect of estimated survival improvements at a single life stage in the context of overall population productivity (or growth rate, λ), which is essential to assessing population viability and predicting extinction risk. Calculating population growth rate in an annualized manner provides a standard metric for comparison between conservation units such as species or ESUs and for comparing likely outcomes of various management strategies. The methods used to derive λ have been developed for data sets with high sampling error and age-structure cycles (Holmes 2001), extensively tested using simulations for threatened/endangered populations and low-risk stocks (Holmes 2004), and cross-validated with time series data (Holmes and Fagan 2002). At the scale of ESUs, this general methodology has been used to compare how various recovery actions will likely improve the status of listed Pacific salmon in the Columbia River (McClure et al. 2003a). The modeling analyses suggested that improvements to the federal Columbia River hydropower system aimed at increasing migration survival for juvenile and adult fish would not, for most ESUs, increase population growth rate enough to reverse current declines.

Similarly reducing current harvest rates alone was also insufficient alone to reverse declines for most ESUs. Importantly, for some ESUs, harvest rates have already been reduced dramatically (e.g., to 2–8% for Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon); thus, eliminating current harvest provides relatively small improvements. In contrast, for a few ESUs subject to both ocean and in-river harvest, such as the Upper Willamette Chinook salmon ESU and the Snake River fall Chinook salmon ESU, elimination of harvest could substantially reduce declines. Similar life-cycle modeling has explored the impact of avian predators in the Columbia River. Predation on outmigrating juveniles of Pacific salmon by Caspian terns (Sterna caspia) nesting in the Columbia River estuary was significant enough that reducing or eliminating predation from the largest tern colony in the Pacific Northwest had the potential to increase population growth rate of threatened and endangered steelhead ESUs in the Columbia River basin (Good et al. 2007). These analyses were considered in the course of drafting an environmental impact statement charged with managing the level of Caspian tern predation on Pacific salmon in the Columbia River basin. These analyses point to the need for a multi-faceted approach to recoveryplanning particular to each ESU. This approach would incorporate improvements from a variety of sectors rather than relying on a single action or type of action considered generally applicable to recovering all threatened ESUs. This approach would also require consideration of survival and/or productivity across all life stages, although efforts may be constrained by limited data on connections between population growth rate and potential management actions across the landscape. For individual populations or ESUs, such models have been employed to explore the demographic effects of reducing mortality at different life stages for Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon. Density-independent, deterministic matrix modeling has suggested that significant increases in survival during in-river migration of either adults or juveniles were not likely to reverse the decline of that ESU toward extinction (Kareiva et al. 2000). Instead, this analysis, as well as that of Wilson (2003) suggested that modest reductions in first-year mortality

Fisheries • vol 32 no 9 • september 2007 •

or estuarine mortality had the potential to reverse current population declines. This approach does have limits, as it treats all habitats as if they have experienced the same degree of degradation and assumes that all habitats are equally restorable. More recent efforts at stochastic matrix modeling include density-dependence in the early freshwater life stage (Zabel et al. 2006). This and similar models evaluated whether increases in freshwater survival required under the Federal Columbia River Power System Biological Opinion (NMFS 2004) were consistent with realistic freshwater survival rates (McClure et al. 2004). In all cases, information gaps challenge modeling efforts in conservation planning, but advances in modeling should improve on their heuristic value by achieving more biological realism. Also at the scale of individual populations, models that simultaneously incorporate multiple factors—habitat attributes, hatchery operations, and harvest management—have also been developed for Pacific salmon conservation planning. The SHIRAZ model relies on a set of user-defined relationships among habitat attributes, fish productivity, and carrying capacity to evaluate population performance across space and time (Scheuerell et al. 2006). This model was applied to two populations of the threatened Puget Sound Chinook salmon ESU in the Snohomish River basin in Washington. By incorporating hatchery and harvest management data, the analyses translated proposed actions (land-use restoration and protection) throughout the river basin into projected improvements in Chinook salmon abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and life history diversity (Bartz et al. 2006; Scheuerell et al. 2006). This model framework was instrumental in helping a multistakeholder recovery planning group in the Snohomish Basin craft and compare conservation alternatives for its Chinook salmon recovery plan. Subsequent analyses on the success of alternative restoration strategies suggest that the approach adopted by the watershed will help somewhat in mitigating against negative impacts of future climate changes. These results were also used to bolster the adoption of the recovery strategy by the watershed council (Battin et al. 2007). Each of these analyses involves considerable uncertainty in both model form and model parameters. This uncertainty has been addressed in two ways: (1) use of 433

sensitivity analyses that assess how altered on recovery of these populations. Such throughout the Pacific Northwest. These model form might influence model results, models help understand the feasibility of teams are completing initial tasks, such as and (2) use of analyses that evaluate how specific restoration options suggested by population identification and risk analyparameter uncertainty alters model results. sensitivity analyses, and can help narrow sis, and recommendation of viability tarIn the first approach, Greene and Beechie the range of options that managers must gets for threatened and endangered ESUs (2004) showed that choosing among consider in recovery planning. in their domains. The TRTs have moved models incorporating density-indepenon to analyses of the cumulative effects of dent mortality, density-dependent mor- Conclusions multiple factors over large spatial scales, tality, and density-dependent movement employing metapopulation models where between habitats can alter conclusions Scientific analyses for Pacific salmon possible, and fostering the use of largeabout which components of the salmon populations continue in the TRTs scale experimentation to manipulate or life cycle are limiting. That is, one model form predicted that Figure 4. (A) Landslide hazard in the watersheds of Puget Sound and (B) quartile ranks of the relative risk (% of population area under high and spawning habitat constrains salmon recovery, a second model form suggested that in-river rearing habitats were the bottleneck, and the third model suggested that a combination of river and estuarine rearing habitats were most important to restore. While the third model form was deemed most realistic and guided managers toward restoring rearing habitats, the model comparisons also instilled caution and suggested that bet-hedging strategies be used. The second approach to evaluating uncertainty uses a Monte Carlo approach to illustrate the combined effect of multiple parameter uncertainties on model results. For example, Beechie et al. (2006a) showed that incorporating parameter uncertainty into predictions of present-day spawning habitat capacity for Puget Sound Chinook populations produces estimates that range over four orders of magnitude. Nevertheless, there was virtually no overlap of distributions of spawner capacity estimates with current spawner population sizes, suggesting that spawning habitat is not a likely constraint 434

Fisheries • vol 32 no 9 • september 2007 •

take advantage of natural variation in ecological factors in the impact of hatchery fish, in harvest effects, and in the influence of non-indigenous species. Scenario analyses have shown promise in addressing global issues (Bennett et al. 2003) and are also being investigated as a way to make predictions about alternative sets of actions whose combined effects will suffice to recover the listed Pacific salmon ESUs (Steel et al. 2003; Battin et al. 2007). Simulation models have

been used to explore different assumptions about the environment and their influence on Pacific salmon (ISAB 2001), and scenarios for salmon recovery consider variability in oceanic and freshwater conditions and technical solutions to severe anthropogenic factors with deleterious effects (e.g., changes in hatchery management, changes in dam engineering and management, stream restoration actions, and selective harvest) and environmental variability. In the future, sce-

nario analyses could help inform decision makers by explicitly illuminating trade-offs between economics and ecology or social values and biology. The general challenges of conservation planning for Pacific salmon are twofold: (1) to identify and cope with the suite of biological/environmental factors that vary across the landscape and (2) to navigate the management boundaries and mandates of resource agencies charged with conserving these icons of the Pacific Northwest. The recovery planning approach being medium hazard probability) among the 22 populations of the Puget Sound Chinook salmon evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) (Good et al. in press). enacted for ESA-listed Pacific salmon endeavors to illuminate the consequences of alternative management strategies, in the face of both ecological and political uncertainties, by (1) incorporating analyses of landscape-scale processes with the effects of local recovery actions throughout the life cycle, and (2) incorporating federal, state, tribal agencies, and local government and watershed groups in both the technical and policy stages of recovery planning. These strategies have been outlined by the Shared Strategy of Puget Sound in their Puget Sound salmon recovery plan (Shared Strategy 2007). This groundbreaking collaborative effort to protect and restore salmon runs across Puget Sound engaged local citizens, tribes, technical experts and policy makers in recovery planning endorsed by the people living and working in the watersheds of Puget Sound. The Shared Strategy group (1) identified what should be in a recovery plan and assessed how current efforts can support the plan, (2) set recovery targets and ranges for each watershed, (3) identified actions needed at the watershed level to meet targets, (4) determined if identified actions add up to recovery (and if Fisheries • vol 32 no 9 • september 2007 •


not, identified needed adjustments), and (5) finalized the plan, actions and commitments necessary for successful implementation. The recovery plan developed by Shared Strategy was officially adopted by NMFS/NOAA Fisheries in January of 2007. Similar efforts will ultimately result in recovery plans for more than two dozen endangered and threatened Pacific salmon in the Pacific Northwest and may be a model for recovery planning for other wide-ranging taxa. Our effectiveness at

developing and implementing these plans ultimately will be reflected in the status of the region’s salmon for many decades into the future. Acknowledgments We thank the members of the regional Technical Recovery Teams (Puget Sound, Willamette-Lower Columbia, Interior Columbia Basin, Oregon/Northern California Coast, North-Central California

Coast, South-Central California Coast, and California Central Valley). We are indebted to J. Hard, M. Scheuerell, and A. Steel for helpful comments on the manuscript, which was spawned by a 2003 Society for Conservation Biology symposium, entitled “Conservation Planning for Wide-ranging Species.” References Allendorf, F. W., D. Bayles, D. L. Bottom, K. P. Currens, C. A. Frissell, D. Hankin, J. A.Lichatowich, W. Nehlsen, P. C.

Figure 5. Steelhead populations in the interior Columbia River basin recovery domain categorized by likelihood of impairment to one or more habitat conditions: instream flow, diversion entrainment, riparian condition, floodplain condition, water quality (toxics), mass wasting, and fine sedimentation. Darker colors indicate more factors are likely impaired. Impairment was defined as the relative change from historic conditions in each factor; populations within the top 30% of this range were considered impaired (MM, unpublished data). Population status was determined by evaluating current abundance, long-term and short-term trends in abundance, and current vs. likely historical distributions (in space and across ecoregional boundaries). All but one of the populations (NF John Day) showed some impairment in at least one of these traits. Those that are noted as being in relatively better condition showed impairment only in abundance or trend; those in relatively poor condition were impaired in abundance, trend and some aspect of distribution.


Fisheries • vol 32 no 9 • september 2007 •

Trotter, and T. H. Williams. 1997. Prioritizing Pacific salmon stocks for conservation. Conservation Biology 11:140-152. Bartz, K. K., K. Lagueux, M. D. Scheuerell, T. Beechie, A. Haas, and M. H. Ruckelshaus. 2006. Translating restoration scenarios into habitat conditions: an initial step in evaluating recovery strategies for Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 63:1578-1595. Battin, J., M. Wiley, M. Ruckelshaus, R. Palmer, E. Korb, K. Bartz, and H. Imaki. 2007. Projected impacts of future climate change on salmon habitat restoration actions in a Puget Sound river. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104(16):6720-6725. Beechie, T. J., and S. Bolton. 1999. An approach to restoring salmonid habitat-forming processes in Pacific Northwest watersheds. Fisheries 24(4):6-15. Beechie, T. J., E. A. Steel, P. R. Roni, and E. Quimby (editors). 2003a. Ecosystem recovery planning for listed salmon: an integrated assessment approach for salmon habitat. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-58. Beechie, T. J., G. Pess, E. Beamer, G. Lucchetti, and R. E. Bilby. 2003b. Roles of watershed assessments in recovery planning for threatened or endangered salmon. Pages 194-225 in D. Montgomery, S. Bolton, D. Booth, and L. Wall, eds. Restoring Puget Sound rivers. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Beechie, T. J., E. Buhle, M. H. Ruckelshaus, A. H. Fullerton, and L. Holsinger. 2006a. Hydrologic regime and the conservation of salmon life history diversity. Biological Conservation 130:360-372. Beechie, T. J., C. M. Greene, L. Holsinger, and E. Beamer. 2006b. Incorporating parameter uncertainty into evaluations of spawning habitat limitations on Chinook salmon populations. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 63:1242-1250. Bennett, E. M., S. R. Carpenter, G. D. Peterson, G. S. Cumming, M. Zurek, and P. Pingali. 2003. Why global scenarios need ecology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1:322–329. Bjorkstedt, E. P., B. C. Spence, J. Garza, D. Hankin, D. Fuller, W. E. Jones, J. Smith, and R. Macedo. 2005. An analysis of historical population structure for evolutionarily significant units of Chinook salmon, coho salmon, and steelhead in the north-

TRTs have conducted site visits in various recovery domains to assess conservation efforts, habitat quality, an salmonid sampling efforts. Michelle McClure and Jeff Jorgensen of the NWFSC visit high-quality habitat recently made accessible in the Upper Lenhi River drainage.

Fisheries • vol 32 no 9 • september 2007 •


central California coast recovery domain. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SWFSC-382. Boersma, P. D., P. Karieva, W. F. Fagan, J. A. Clark, and J. M. Hoekstra. 2001. How good are endangered species recovery plans? BioScience 51:643–649. Boughton, D. A., P. B. Adams, E. Anderson, C. Fusaro, E. Keller, E. Kelley, L. Lentsch, J. Nielsen, K. Perry, H. Regan, J. Smith, C. Swift, L. Thompson, and F. Watson. 2006. Steelhead of the south-central/southern California coast: population characterization for recovery planning. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SWFSC-394. Brannon, E. L., M. S. Powell, T. P. Quinn, and A. Talbot. 2004a. Population structure of Columbia River basin Chinook salmon and steelhead trout. Reviews in Fisheries Science 12:99–232. Brannon, E. L., D. F. Amend, M. A. Cronin, J. E. Lannan, S. LaPatra, W. J. McNeil, R. E. Noble, C. E. Smith, A. J. Talbot, G. A. Wedemeyer, and H. Westers. 2004b. The controversy about salmon hatcheries. Fisheries 29(9):12-28. Busby, P. J., T. C. Wainwright, G. J. Bryant, L. Lierheimer, R. S. Waples, F. W. Waknitz, and I. V. Lagomarsino. 1996. Status review of west coast steelhead from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-27. Cooney, T. D., and D. Holzer. 2004. Estimating historical intrinsic production potential: interior Columbia stream type Chinook and steelhead populations. Appendix D to McClure et al. 2004. Evaluating the potential for improvements to habitat condition to improve population status for eight salmon and steelhead ESUs in the Columbia Basin. NWFSC Processed Report in support of the 2004 FCRPS Biological Opinion Remand released for co-manager review. NOAA Fisheries, Seattle, Washington. Available at: _reports/habitat/ A_Remand_Habitat_Analysis_11_2004.pdf. Cooney, T. D., M. M. McClure, R. Carmichael, T. Cooney, P. Hassemer, P. Howell, D. McCullough, C. Petrosky, H. Schaller, P. Spruell, F. Utter, and C. Baldwin. 2005. Viability criteria for application to interior Columbia Basin salmonid ESUs. Interior Columbia Basin Technical Recovery Team draft report, July 2005. NOAA Fisheries, Seattle, Washington. Available at: www. and www. (memo update). Davies, J. R., K. M. Lagueux, B. L. Sanderson, and T. J. Beechie. 2007. Modeling stream channel characteristics from drainageenforced DEMs in Puget Sound, WA, USA. Journal of American Water Resources Association (in press). Fresh, K. L. 1997. The role of competition and predation in the decline of Pacific Salmon and steelhead. Pages 245-276 in D. J. Stouder, P. A. Bisson, and R.J. Naiman, eds. Pacific salmon and their ecosystems: status and future options. Chapman and Hall, New York. Friesen, T. A., and D. L. Ward. 1999. Management of northern pikeminnow and implications for juvenile salmonid survival in the lower Columbia and Snake Rivers, North American Journal of Fisheries Management 19:406-420. Good, T. P., and J. Fabbri. 2003. Catastrophic risk assessment of Lower Columbia and Willamette River ESUs for endangered and threatened Pacific salmon. Appendix K in Willamette/Lower Columbia Pacific salmonid viability criteria. Willamette/Lower Columbia Technical Recovery Team Report. 8 May 2003. NOAA Fisheries, Seattle, Washington. Available at: www.nwfsc.noaa. gov/trt/wlc_viabrpt/appendix_k.pdf. Good, T. P., R. S. Waples, and P. Adams (editors). 2005. Updated status of federally listed ESUs of West Coast salmon and steelhead. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-66. Good, T. P., M. M. McClure, B. P. Sandford, K. A. Barnas, D. M. Marsh, B. A. Ryan, and E. Casillas. 2007. Quantifying the effect of Caspian tern predation on threatened and endangered Pacific


salmon in the Columbia River. Endangered Species Research (in press). Good, T. P., J. R. Davies, and M. H. Ruckelshaus. In press. Incorporating catastrophic risk assessments into setting conservation goals for Pacific salmon. Ecological Applications. Greene, C. M., and T. J. Beechie. 2004. Consequences of potential density-dependent mechanisms on recovery of ocean-type Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 61:590-602. Groot C., and L. Margolis. 1991. Pacific salmon life histories. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver. Gustafson, R. G., T. C. Wainwright, G. A. Winans, F. W. Waknitz, L. T. Parker, and R. S. Waples. 1997. Status review of sockeye salmon from Washington and Oregon. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-33. Gustafson, R. G., R. S. Waples, J. M. Myers, L. A. Weitkamp, G. J. Bryant, O. W. Johnson, and J. J. Hard. 2007. Pacific salmon extinctions: quantifying lost and remaining diversity. Conservation Biology (in press). Hard, J. J., R. G. Kope, W. S. Grant, F. W. Waknitz, L. T. Parker, and R. S. Waples. 1996. Status review of pink salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo., NMFS-NWFSC-25. Hare, S. R., and R. C. Francis. 1995. Climate change and salmon production in the northeast Pacific Ocean. Pages 357-372 in R. J. Beamish, eds. Climate change and northern fish populations. Canadian Special Publications Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 121. NRC Research Press, Ottawa, Ontario. Healey, M. C. 1991. Life history of Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha. Pages 311-394 in C. Groot and L. Margolis, eds. Pacific salmon life histories. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver. Hoekstra, J., K. Bartz, M. Ruckelshaus, J. Moslemi, and T. Harms. In press. Quantitative threat analysis for management of an imperiled species—Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Ecological Applications. Holmes, E. E. 2001. Estimating risks in declining populations with poor data. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 98:5072-5077. ___. 2004. Beyond theory to application and evaluation: diffusion approximations for population viability analysis. Ecological Applications 14:1272-1293. Holmes, E. E., and W. F. Fagan. 2002. Validating population viability analysis for corrupted data sets. Ecology 83:2379-2386. Irvine, J. R., M. R. Gross, C. C. Wood, L. B. Holtby, N. D. Schubert, and P. G. Amiro. 2005. Canada’s species at risk act: an opportunity to protect “endangered” salmon. Fisheries 30(12):11-19. ISAB (Independent Scientific Advisory Board). 2001. Model synthesis report: an analysis of decision support tools used in Columbia River Basin salmon management. Report from the Independent Scientific Advisory Board, Northwest Power Planning Council and the National Marine Fisheries Service, Portland, Oregon. Johnson, O. W., W. S. Grant, R. G. Kope, K. Neely, F. W. Waknitz, and R. S. Waples. 1997. Status review of chum salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-32. Kareiva, P., M. Marvier, and M. McClure. 2000. Recovery and management options for spring/summer Chinook salmon in the Columbia River Basin. Science 290:977-979. Lawson, P. W., E. Bjorkstedt, M. Chilcote, C. Huntington, J. Mills, K. Moore, T. E. Nickelson, G. H. Reeves, H. A. Stout, and T. C. Wainwright. 2004. Identification of historical populations of coho salmon (Onchorhynchus kisutch) in the Oregon coast evolutionarily significant unit. Oregon Northern California Coast Technical Recovery Team review draft. NOAA Fisheries, Newport, Oregon. Available at: draft_documents.cfm.

Fisheries • vol 32 no 9 • september 2007 •

Levin, P. S., and N. Tolimieri. 2001. Differences in the impacts of dams on the dynamics of salmon populations. Animal Conservation 4:291-299. Lindley, S. T., R. Schick, B. P. May, J. J. Anderson, S. Greene, C. Hanson, A. Low, D. McEwan, R. B. MacFarlane, C. Swanson, and J. G. Williams. 2004. Population structure of threatened and endangered Chinook salmon ESUs in California’s Central Valley basin. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SWFSC-360. Lindley, S. T., R. S. Schick, A. Agrawal, M. Goslin, T. E. Pearson, E. Mora, J. J. Anderson, B. May, S. Greene, C. Hanson, A. Low, D. McEwan, R. B. MacFarlane, C. Swanson, and J. G. Williams. 2006. Historical population structure of Central Valley steelhead and its alteration by dams. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science.4, Article 3. Available at: http://repositories. Mantua, N. J., S. R. Hare, Y. Zhang, J. M. Wallace, and R. C. Francis. 1997. A Pacific interdecadal climate oscillation with impacts on salmon production. American Meteorological Society Bulletin 78:1069-1079. McClure, M. M., E. E. Holmes, B. L. Sanderson, and C. E. Jordan. 2003a. A large-scale, multi-species status assessment: salmonids in the Columbia River Basin. Ecological Applications 13:964-989. McClure, M. M., R. Carmichael, T. Cooney, P. Hassemer, P. Howell, D. McCullough, C. Petrosky, H. Schaller, P. Spruell, and F. Utter. 2003b. Independent populations of Chinook, steelhead, and sockeye for listed evolutionarily significant units within the interior Columbia River domain. Technical Recovery Team working draft, July 2003. NOAA Fisheries, Seattle, WA. Available at: McClure, M. M., T. Beechie, T. Cooney, R. Zabel, M. Ruckelshaus, and K. Fresh. 2004. Evaluating the potential for improvements to habitat condition to improve population status for eight salmon and steelhead ESUs in the Columbia Basin. NWFSC Processed Report in support of the 2004 FCRPS Biological Opinion Remand released for co-manager review. NOAA Fisheries, Seattle, Washington. Available at: remand/analysis_ reports/habitat/A_Remand_Habitat_ Analysis_ 11_2004.pdf. McElhany P., M. H. Ruckelshaus, M. J. Ford, T. Wainwright, and E. Bjorkstedt. 2000. Viable salmonid populations and the recovery of evolutionarily significant units. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo NMFS-NWFSC-42. McElhany P., T. Backman, C. Busack, S. Heppell, S. Kolmes, A. Maule, J. Myers, D. Rawding, D. Shively, A. Steel, C. Steward, and T. Whitesel. 2003. Interim report on viability criteria for Willamette and Lower Columbia Basin Pacific salmonids. Willamette/Lower Columbia Technical Recovery Team report, 31 March 2003. NOAA Fisheries, Seattle, Washington. Available at: McElhany P., C. Busack, M. Chilcote, S. Kolmes, B. McIntosh, J. Myers, D. Rawding, A. Steel, C. Steward, D. Ward, T. Whitesel, and C. Willis. 2006. Revised viability criteria for salmon and steelhead in the Willamette and Lower Columbia Basins. Willamette/Lower Columbia Technical Recovery Team and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife review draft, 1 April 2006. Available at: WLC_Viability_Criteria_ Draft_Apr_2006.pdf. Myers, J. M., R. G. Kope, B. J. Bryant, D. Teel, L. J. Lierheimer, T. C. Wainwright, W. S. Grant, F. W. Waknitz, K. Neely, S. T. Lindley, and R. S. Waples. 1998. Status review of Chinook salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo NMFS-NWFSC-35. Myers, J., C. Busack, D. Rawding, A. Marshall, D. Teel, D. M. Van Doornik, and M. T. Maher. 2006. Historical population structure of Pacific salmonids in the Willamette River and lower Columbia River basins. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-73.

Fisheries • vol 32 no 9 • september 2007 •


NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1997. Investigation of scientific information on the impacts of California sea lions and Pacific harbor seals on salmonids and on the coastal ecosystems of Washington, Oregon, and California. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-28. _____. 2004. Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation. Consultation on remand for operation of the Columbia River power system and 19 Bureau of Reclamation projects in the Columbia River Basin (Revised and reissued pursuant to court order NWF v. NMFS Civ. No. CV 01-640-RE (D-OR). NOAA Fisheries, Seattle, Washington. Available at: NRC (National Research Council). 1996. Upstream: salmon and society in the Pacific Northwest. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. PCSRF (Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund). 2005. Report to Congress: FY 2000–2004. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA/NMFS, July 2005. Seattle, Washington. Paulsen C. M., and T. R. Fisher. 2001. Statistical relationship between parr-to-smolt survival of Snake River spring-summer Chinook salmon and indices of land use. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 130:347–58. Pess, G. R., D. R. Montgomery, E. A. Steel, R. E. Bilby, B. E. Feist, and H. M. Greenberg. 2002. Landscape characteristics, land use, and coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) abundance, Snohomish River, Washington. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 59:613–23. Ralls, K., D. P. DeMaster, and J. A. Estes. 1996. Developing a criterion for delisting the southern sea otter under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Conservation Biology 10:528-1537. Reed, D. H., J. J. O’Grady, J. D. Ballou, and R. Frankham. 2003. The frequency and severity of catastrophic die-offs in vertebrates. Animal Conservation 6:109–114. Ricker, W. E. 1972. Hereditary and environmental factors affecting certain salmonid populations. Pages 27-160 in R. C. Simon and P. A. Larkin, eds. The stock concept in Pacific salmon. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, Canada. Roby, D.D., D. E. Lyons, D. P. Craig, K. Collis, and G. H. Visser. 2003. Quantifying the effects of predators on endangered species using a bioenergetics approach: Caspian terns and juvenile salmonids in the Columbia River estuary. Canadian Journal of Zoology 81:250-265. Ruckelshaus, M., K. Currens, W. Graeber, R. Fuerstenberg, K. Rawson, N. Sands and J. Scott. 2002a. Planning ranges and preliminary guidelines for the delisting and recovery of the Puget Sound Chinook salmon evolutionarily significant unit. Puget Sound TRT 30 April 2002 report. NOAA Fisheries, Seattle, Washington. Available at: resources.htm. Ruckelshaus, M. H. and D. Darm. 2006. Science and implementation. Pages 104-126 in J. M. Scott, D. D. Goble, and F. W. Davis, eds. The Endangered Species Act at 30: conserving biodiversity in human-dominated landscapes. Vol. 2. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Ruckelshaus, M. H., P. S. Levin, J. B. Johnson, and P. Kareiva. 2002b. The Pacific salmon wars: what science brings to the challenge of recovering species. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33:665-706. Ruckelshaus, M., P. McElhany, M. McClure and S. Heppell. 2004. How many populations are needed for persistence of listed salmon species? Exploring the effects of spatially correlated catastrophes. Pages 208-218 in R. Ackakaya and M. Burgman, eds. Species conservation and management: case studies. Oxford University Press, UK. Ruckelshaus, M. H., K. P. Currens, W. H. Graeber, R. R. Fuerstenberg, K. Rawson, N. J. Sands, and J. B. Scott. 2006. Independent populations of Chinook salmon in Puget Sound. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-78.


Schaller, H. A., C. E. Petrosky, and O. P. Langness. 1999. Contrasting patterns of productivityand survival rates for streamtype Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) populations of the Snake and Columbia rivers. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56:1031-1045. Scheuerell, M. D., R. Hilborn, M. H. Ruckelshaus, K. K. Bartz, K. M. Lagueux, A. D. Haas, and K. Rawson. 2006. The Shiraz model: a tool for incorporating fish-habitat relationships in conservation planning. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 63:1596-1607. Schiewe, M., and P. Kareiva. 2000. Salmon. Pages 233-243 in S. Levin, ed. Encyclopedia of biodiversity. First edition. Academic Press, San Diego, California. Shared Strategy for Puget Sound. 2007. Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan, Volume 1. Submitted by the Shared Strategy Development Committee, Seattle, WA. Adopted by National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 19 January 2007. Available at: Steel, E. A., M. Sheer, P. Olsen, A. Fullerton, J. Burke, and D. Jensen. 2003. Habitat analyses for the Lewis River case study. Interim report to the Willamette/Lower Columbia River Technical Recovery Team. March 2003. NOAA Fisheries, Seattle, Washington. Stouder, D. J., P. A. Bisson, and R. J. Naiman. 1997. Pacific salmon and their ecosystems: status and future options. Chapman and Hall, New York. Unwin, M. J., T. P. Quinn, M. T. Kinnison, and N. C. Boustead. 2000. Divergence in juvenile growth and life history in two recently colonized and partially isolated Chinook salmon populations. Journal of Fish Biology 57:943-960. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2005. Short-tailed albatross draft recovery plan. USFWS, Anchorage, Alaska. Waples, R. S. 1991. Pacific salmon, Oncorhynchus spp., and the definition of “species” under the Endangered Species Act. Marine Fisheries Review 53:11–22. Waples, R. S., D. J. Teel, J. M. Myers, and A. R. Marshall. 2004. Life-history divergence in Chinook salmon: historic contingency and parallel evolution. Evolution 58:386-403. Weitkamp, L. A., T. C. Wainwright, G. J. Bryant, G. B. Milner, D. J. Teel, R. G. Kope, and R. S. Waples. 1995. Status review of coho salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-24. Welch, D. W., B. R. Ward, B. D. Smith, and J. P. Eveson. 2000. Temporal and spatial responses of British Columbia steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) populations to ocean climate shifts. Fisheries Oceanography 9:17-32. Williams, R. N., P. A. Bisson, D. L. Bottom, L. D. Calvin, C. C. Coutant, M. W. Erho, C. A., Frissell, J. A. Lichatowich, W. J. Liss, W. E. McConnaha, P. R. Mundy, J. A. Stanford, and R. R. Whitney. 1999. Scientific issues in the restoration of salmonid fishes in the Columbia River. Fisheries 24(3):10-19. Williams, T. H., E. P. Bjorkstedt, W. G. Duffy, D. Hillemeier, G. Kautsky, T. E. Lisle, M. McCain, M. Rode, R. G. Szerlong, R. S. Schick, M. N. Goslin, and A. Agrawal. 2006. Historical population structure of coho salmon in the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coasts evolutionarily significant unit. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SWFSC-390. Wilson, P. H. 2003. Using population projection matrices to evaluate recovery strategies for Snake River spring and summer Chinook salmon. Conservation Biology 17:782-794. Zabel, R., M. D. Scheuerell, M. M. McClure, and J. G. Williams. 2006. The interplay between climate variability and density dependence in the population viability of Chinook salmon. Conservation Biology 20:190-200.

Fisheries • vol 32 no 9 • september 2007 •

Feature: History Coho Salmon Are Native South of San Francisco Bay: A Reexamination of North American Coho Salmon’s Southern Range Limit Abstract: Kaczynski and Alvarado (2006) have challenged the established southern boundary of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) at the San Lorenzo River. They conclude that it is improbable coho salmon maintained self-sustaining populations south of San Francisco Bay, based primarily on evidence from early museum collections and literature, the archaeological record, analyses of ocean conditions, and suitability of habitat. They suggest that hatchery plantings were the source of these coho salmon south of San Francisco Bay. Using the same and new information, we are able to counter these statements. Our examination of existing records found no reason to discount the coho salmon collections made in 1895 from streams south of San Francisco. Early distributional records state that coho salmon were abundant from San Francisco northward, but did not indicate coho salmon were absent south of San Francisco. Recent archeological evidence documents the presence of coho salmon in middens south of San Francisco prior to European habitation of the region. Furthermore, we found no creditable climatic, oceanographic, or ecological evidence for habitat differences between areas immediately north and south of San Francisco Bay. In fact, we believe that there is a more reasonable habitat and faunal break south of the San Lorenzo River, encompassing the allegedly controversial southern range of the coho salmon.

El salmón coho es nativo del sur de la Bahía de San Francisco: una reevaluación del límite sur de la distribución del salmón coho de Norte América Resumen: Kaczynski y Alvarado (2006) establecieron que el Río San Lorenzo es la frontera sur de la distribución del salmón coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Sobre la base de evidencia museográfica y documentaria, registros arqueológicos, análisis de condiciones oceánicas y del hábitat, concluyen que es improbable que existan poblaciones viables de salmón coho al sur de la Bahía de San Francisco. Sugieren que el origen de estos salmones en la Bahía de San Francisco son granjas de engorda. Utilizando la misma y nueva información, en el presente trabajo se confrontan dichos argumentos. Nuestro examen de los registros existentes muestra que no hay razón aparente como para descartar las colecciones de salmón coho realizadas en 1895 en los ríos del sur de San Francisco. Los primeros registros de la distribución geográfica de esta especie indican que era abundante desde San Francisco hacia el norte, pero no prueban que el salmón coho estuviese ausente del sur de San Francisco. La evidencia arqueológica reciente documenta la presencia del salmón coho en el sur de San Francisco incluso antes de los asentamientos europeos en la región. Más aún, no se encontró evidencia suficiente en cuanto al clima, oceanografía o ecología que corrobore diferencias de hábitat entre las áreas inmediatas al sur y norte de la Bahía de San Francisco. De hecho, creemos que existe una mayor y razonable diferenciación faunística y de hábitat al sur del Río San Lorenzo, lo que comprende buena parte de la controversia sobre el ámbito sureño de la distribución del salmón coho. Fisheries • vol 32 no 9 • september 2007 •

Peter B. Adams, Louis W. Botsford, Kenneth W. Gobalet, Robert A. Leidy, Dennis R. McEwan, Peter B. Moyle, Jerry J. Smith, John G. Williams, and Ronald M. Yoshiyama Adams is a research fishery biologist at the NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service Southwest Fisheries Science Center in Santa Cruz, California. He can be contacted at [email protected] gov. Botsford and Moyle are professors and Yoshiyama is a research associate in Wildlife, Fish, and Conservation Biology, University of California, Davis. Gobalet is a professor, Department of Biology, California State University, Bakersfield. Leidy is an ecologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, California. McEwan is a staff environmental scientist, California Department of Water Resources, Sacramento. Smith is a professor, Department of Biological Science, San Jose State University, San Jose, California. Williams is a fisheries consultant in Davis, California.

Introduction Establishing the boundary of any species’ range is a difficult task. Since by definition species are the most vulnerable to extinction at the edge of their range, establishing this boundary often depends on historical information. Kaczynski and Alvarado (2006:374) present evidence that supports their position that it is improbable that coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) maintained self-sustaining populations south of San Francisco Bay, California. Their publication presents the first challenge to the previously accepted southern boundary of coho salmon at the San Lorenzo River, Santa Cruz County (Sandercock 1991; Moyle 2002). This boundary has been widely accepted since 1912 when Snyder (1912) provided the first specific 441

description of the southern boundary of coho salmon. A close look at the evidence presented by Kaczynski and Alvarado (2006), combined with other evidence, leads us to the opposite conclusion, i.e., coho salmon are native to streams south of San Francisco Bay. Evidence provided by Kaczynski and Alvarado (2006) falls into the following general categories: 1. early distributional records including museum specimens, 2. archaeological evidence, 3. suitability of habitat, and 4. hatcheries as the source of southern coho salmon. Their article also deals briefly with genetic evidence, straying, and ocean conditions. Here we examine their analysis point-by-point and provide additional new evidence. Our analyses demonstrate that the historically accepted assumption that coho salmon populations south of San Francisco Bay were self-sustaining is the only conclusion supported by the evidence. Finally, much of current source material used by Kaczynski and Alvarado (2006) comes from the authors of this article and we wish to correct Kaczynski and Alvarado’s misinterpretation of our work. Early Distributional Records Museum Collections. Museum collection records from the California Academy of Science (CAS) document the collection of 11 coho salmon from Waddell Creek (SU 4667) and 4 coho salmon from Scott Creek (SU 4797) on 5 June 1895 by C. Rutter, N. Scofield, C. Pierson, and A. Seale of Stanford University. Collections of 2 coho salmon from San Vicente Creek (SU 4685) and 1 coho salmon from Gazos Creek (SU 4868) were made by the same party but were undated. It can be reasonably assumed that they were made during the same collecting trip (D. Catania, CAS, per. comm.), partly because the 1895 Carmel River Expedition was the only one in which all four collectors were recorded as participants (Boehlke 1953). The fish from these 1895 collections originally were misidentified as Chinook salmon (quinnat; O. tshawytscha) and chum salmon (dog; O. keta) in the Stanford collections. This mistake is not 442

unusual given the documented difficulty at that time in distinguishing salmon species in California (CFGC 1913; Snyder 1931). The correct identification of these fishes as coho salmon was made at some later date by unknown museum staff, probably before the Stanford collections were transferred to the CAS (D. Catania, CAS. pers. comm.). In addition, further confusion ensued when the original species identifications were entered in the CAS electronic data collection system around 1990 and were again corrected in 1999. Kaczynski and Alvarado (2006) challenged the reliability of these samples, due to the original misidentification of the fish and to the changes in recording ledgers and archiving systems described above. However, the jars containing coho salmon in the CAS collection include their original locality labels and metal identification tags and there is no question that these were the fish collected by the Rutter party (D. Catania, CAS, pers. comm.) or that they are coho salmon. Kaczynski and Alvarado (2006) speculate that the specimens or labels may have gotten mixed up as the result of the San Francisco earthquake of 1906, in which some of the bottles containing the Stanford collection were broken. The curators of the collection strongly believe that this not the case and point to the meticulous procedures by then curator J. O. Snyder (and others). Specifically, broken jars were recorded and accounted for, with their specimens bearing a unique labels stating “Bottle broken during earthquake.” (D. Catania, CAS, pers. comm.) Specimens were discarded if it could not be determined which broken bottle they belonged to and specimens for which there was some doubt were placed in jars with labels. Kaczynski and Alvarado (2006:380) also reject these CAS collections as evidence of coho salmon presence because “the chain of custody has been broken and the reliability of the specimens is questionable.” Chain of custody is an incongruous concept to apply to this situation because it is a legal concept in which evidence used in court proceedings is valid only if each time that evidence changes hands the transaction is carefully recorded and usually certified. We are unaware of this concept ever being applied to museum collections prior to the Kaczynski and Alvarado

(2006) paper. It is unlikely that any museum specimens collected prior to the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, or even most modern reference collections, could withstand this legal standard. Finally, Kaczynski and Alvarado (2006:381) state that “Nevertheless, even if the dates, locations, and species identifications associated with the specimens were valid, these specimens are not by themselves evidence of a persisting native population of coho salmon south of San Francisco.” Alternatively, they suggest that these fish may have been the result of some “obscure fish planting activities prior to 1895” or that they are strays. Both of these assertions are speculation. Early Literature. Kaczynski and Alvarado’s (2006) primary historic source that coho salmon were not native south of San Francisco is David Starr Jordan, the preeminent American ichthyologist of the late nineteenth century. Jordan and his colleague Charles H. Gilbert first visited the San Francisco area in 1880 while conducting a survey of Pacific Coast fisheries for the U.S. Fish Commission (Jordan 1922). Jordan later returned in 1891 to become the first president of Stanford University, where he established a major ichthyological program and fish collection (Jordan 1922; Boehlke 1953). This collection was intended to be global rather than local (Boehlke 1953), which at least partially explains the relatively low number of coho salmon samples collected from anywhere in California, including from south of San Francisco. Kaczynski and Alvarado (2006) cite many of Jordan’s publications on California fishes, but do not quote him directly. In those cited papers, the most common statement by Jordan is that coho salmon “is abundant from San Francisco northward.” (Jordan et al. 1882:308; Jordan and Evermann 1896:481; 1902:154; 1904:154; 1905:154). The next most frequent statement is “Of these species, the…Silver salmon….predominates in Puget Sound and in most of the streams found along the coast” (Jordan 1892a:11; 1892b:50). “Silver” salmon is a synonym of coho salmon; “king” and “quinnat” salmon are synonyms of Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha); and “dog salmon” is a synonym of chum salmon (O. keta), although it

Fisheries • vol 32 no 9 • september 2007 •

was also used for any hook jawed adult salmon. Here Jordan also states “Only the King Salmon has been noticed south of San Francisco.” In Jordan (1894:131), he states, “the Silver Salmon is not common south of the Columbia, but is sometimes taken in California.” Again Jordan (1894:131) states “Only the King Salmon has been noticed south of San Francisco.” In Jordan (1904:79; 1907:296), he states that “Silver salmon…predominate in most of the smaller streams along the coast. All of the species occur from the Columbia northward; but the blueback is not found in the Sacramento.” Jordan (1904:297) also states that “Only the quinnat and the dog salmon have been noticed south of San Francisco.” Quinnat and dog salmon are the original names used by the 1895 Rutter party for their collections, later correctly identified as coho salmon. From these statements, Kaczynski and Alvarado (2006:376) assert that, “The early coho salmon distribution literature stated that coho salmon were not found south of San Francisco or were only found north of San Francisco.” They also state (p. 381) that “The early scientific surveys and soft literature discussed above speak to the absence of coho salmon south of San Francisco prior to 1895 and in the early 1900s before the introductory plants in 1906.” Jordan’s statements on coho salmon only say that they are “abundant” north of San Francisco. Jordan’s statements that only quinnat and dog salmon have been “noticed” in 1904 refer to the misidentified 1895 coho salmon collections discussed above.

It is important to note that in all of the literature preceding the Kaczynski and Alvarado (2006) publication, no one has ever suggested that coho salmon are not native south of San Francisco. Archaeological Evidence Using the archaeological record to help reconstruct past faunal assemblages in California has been accomplished with mixed success. On the one hand, Gobalet (1990, 1993) confirmed the presence of thicktail chub (Gila crassicauda), Sacramento pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus grandis), and Sacramento perch (Archoplites interruptus) in the Pajaro and Salinas rivers through remains from archaeological sites on Elkhorn Slough in Monterey County. Independently, Schulz (1995) reinforced Gobalet’s (1990, 1993) findings with the identification of thicktail chub and Sacramento perch at an inland archaeological site on the Pajaro River. On the other hand, these excavations at Elkhorn Slough have failed to document other native fish species expected from the drainage, such as hardhead (Mylopharodon conocephalus) and splittail (Pogonichthys macrolepidotus). Thus, despite extensive anecdotal, historical, and ethnographic evidence that the Indians of the Central Valley of California were harvesting large quantities of Chinook salmon (Yoshiyama 1999), the archaeological record does not show this (Gobalet et al. 2004). Likewise, if archaeological evidence were used to establish the historic distributions of marine fishes, otherwise

Fisheries • vol 32 no 9 • september 2007 •

well-known, documented, common, and easily harvested fishes such as Pacific tomcod (Microgadus proximus) and wolf eel (Anarrhichthys ocellatus) would be shown to be absent from most of their range. Given that the absence of remains in archeological surveys is not reliable evidence, by itself, to establish the limit of a species’ historical distribution, Kaczynski and Alvarado’s (2006) citing of Gobalet’s work on the archaeological record of California (Gobalet 1990; Gobalet and Jones 1995; Gobalet et al. 2004) as negative evidence for coho salmon in streams south of San Francisco is not appropriate. For the entire coast of California, there is only Follett’s (1966) report of coho salmon from a site in Del Norte County (by the Oregon border) and the Gobalet et al. (2004) report of either Chinook salmon or coho salmon from a site in Mendocino County on the northern California coast. To be accurate, Kaczynski and Alvarado (2006) should have reported that the archaeological record for coastal California showed no coho salmon south of Mendocino County and not just south of San Francisco. In January 2006, new archeological evidence surfaced that showed coho salmon presence south of San Francisco. Diane Gifford-Gonzales of the University of California, Santa Cruz provided one of us (K. Gobalet) with fish remains recovered during excavations of Santa Cruz County archaeological site SMA18 located in Año Nuevo State Park several kilometers north of Waddell Creek, the nearest major stream. Remains


were from a broad spectrum of coastal California species and including such small fishes as herrings (Clupeidae), sardines (Sardinops sagax caeruleus), northern anchovies (Engraulis mordax), smelt (Osmeridae), northern clingfish (Gobiesox maeandricus), and Pacific silversides (Atherinidae). Also, the centra of two salmonids were recovered and independently evaluated by three fish faunal identification experts. All three were not informed of the determinations of the others. One vertebra was determined to be from a coho salmon by all three experts and the second was identified as coho salmon by two of the three. Thus, with these findings alone, the archaeological record for coho salmon south of San Francisco is now as extensive as the archaeological record north of San Francisco. Additionally, the Ohlone tribelets living around Santa Cruz had distinct names for salmon and trout (Shipley 2002; M. Hylkema, Cal. Dept. of Parks and Recreation, per. comm.), so there are ethnographic suggestions of more than one salmonid in the local streams.

begins at the U.S. and Canadian border and ends south of Santa Cruz at the northern edge of the Salinas Valley. The southern limit of this ecoregion is an ecologically sound southern boundary for coho salmon. The stream habitat in the south of San Francisco region was characterized by Kaczynski and Alvarado (2006) as marginal, harsh, and extreme for coho salmon due to extreme fluctuations in flow, severe drought conditions, high summer water temperatures, and excessive amount of fine sediment in the streams. Each of these claims is addressed below. Extreme fluctuations in flow. Kaczynski and Alvarado (2006:383) show using graphs that the region south of San Francisco region is more likely to receive more than four inches of rain in a single day than the region immediately north of San Francisco Bay (Marin County). While this is true for all months except October, the difference in rainfall pattern between Santa Cruz County and Marin County is small. In six months of the year, Santa Cruz County is less than one-quarter of one percent (0.22%) more likely to receive more than four inches of rainfall than Marin County on average; while in October, Marin County is only very slightly (0.1%) more likely to receive more than four inches than Santa Cruz County. In other words,

in extreme flow events were biologically significant under historical conditions. Severe drought conditions. Periods of prolonged drought are also claimed to cause streams south of San Francisco Bay to be unsuitable for coho salmon (Kaczynski and Alvarado 2006:381-382), where only two streams retained a single coho salmon year class after the 1975-77 drought. In fact, coho salmon survived that extreme drought, and all year classes were apparently still present until 1991, when the first large storm providing adult access did not occur until March 8th, far later than the usual coho salmon spawning period (Smith 1994). The conditions in 1991 resulted in the weakening of the year class on Scott Creek. The same year class was also weakened in Redwood Creek in Marin County, but for both areas, water diversions during the drought were a major difficulty.

Warmer summer stream temperatures. Assertions by Kaczynski and Alvarado (2006:382) that the south of San Francisco region water temperatures were warmer than those of more northSu itability of Habitat ern waters are based on Weitkamp et al. (1995) who indicate that average annual For an anadromous species such as sunshine along the Central California coho salmon, the edge of its range varies coast is greater than anywhere further north. However since the geographic naturally over time. In the Pleistocene, it is conceivable that the southern marregion that Weitkamp et al. (1995) refers gin of coho salmon distribution was in to extends from the San Lorenzo River in southern California during wet cool Santa Cruz County to Cape Mendocino in Humboldt County, the relevancy periods and in Oregon or Washington of this supporting evidence during dry periods. Obviously, The most parsimonious explanation is the distribution of coho is unclear. Figure 7 from salmon would track the Weitkamp et al. (1995) that coho salmon were found in those distribution of suitable specifically shows that habitat, in this case the maximum stream four streams at the same time because cool streams flowing temperature range coho salmon populations persisted there and the through coastal rainin the south of San forests dominated by Francisco region is widespread freshwater distribution of redwood (Sequoia semthe same as that in coho salmon argues that coho salmon had pervirens) and Douglas several streams north of fir (Pseudotsuga menzieSan Francisco (in Marin persistent, self-sustaining populations sii). In recent times, coastal and Mendocino counties), south of San Francisco. redwood forests reached their while some inland coho salmon southern limits in Santa Cruz County, streams further north have higher maxiCalifornia, although there are smaller approximately mum temperatures. Inland portions of relic forests in the northern Big Sur every three years, Santa Cruz County rivers, like the Eel, that still support area further south. The ending of these receives one additional day of rain more coho salmon, have warmer temperatures continuous forests marks Santa Cruz than four inches than Marin County. than streams south of San Francisco County as the southern boundary of Although extreme flow events can devas- (Weitkamp et al. 1995). In addition, air the Environmental Protection Agency’s tate year classes of coho salmon in coastal temperature and the resulting water tem(EPA’s) Marine West Coast Forest California streams (Smith 1998a), it is perature are more likely to be affected Ecoregion (EPA 2006). This ecoregion very unlikely that such small differences by distance from the cooler, foggy coast 444

Fisheries • vol 32 no 9 • september 2007 •

and the size of the stream (and resultant shading) than by north-south distances. Coho salmon were first collected in the region in 1860 by Alexander Agassiz in San Mateo Creek, San Mateo County, which drains into South San Francisco Bay (Leidy et al. 2005). Given that coho salmon occurred in San Mateo Creek, and likely several other streams on the warmer inland side of the coastal ridge, the claim that the coastal streams were too warm for coho salmon is not justified. Excessive amounts of fine sediment. Santa Cruz County streams do have an abundance of fine sediment and it is a problem for the fish (Smith 1996). However, the problem is neither new nor limited to streams south of the San Francisco Bay. All streams in the southern coho salmon region have received massive sediment impacts dating back to the 1850s from logging, sawmills, agriculture, and development (Payne 1978). Thus, it is not surprising that coho salmon populations have declined or even disappeared from southern streams, as they have from many northern streams for the same reasons (Brown et al. 1994). In fact, the region south of San Francisco Bay already had been seriously degraded by 1895 (Payne 1978) when the Rutter and Scofield collections were made. It is reasonable to argue that if native coho salmon populations were not present in the region, it is because they were extirpated by human abuse within the watersheds, as Kaczynski and Alvarado (2006) indicate as an alternative hypothesis. Despite these detrimental land uses, natural reproduction of coho salmon in Scott and Waddell creeks has been taking place at least since Shapovalov and Taft (1954) observed it in the 1930s. The present degraded stream substrate conditions reduce the resilience of southern coho salmon populations, because low spawning success can keep coho salmon populations that have been depressed from rapidly rebounding (Smith 1992, 1996, 1998b). In short, there is no evidence that substantial habitat differences exist between coho salmon streams in Marin County, north of the San Francisco, and Santa Cruz County south of San Francisco. To the contrary, habitat conditions in Santa Cruz are fairly typical of streams supporting coho salmon

along the coast of California, as noted by Shapovalov and Taft (1954:10) who described Waddell Creek as “…typical of the great majority of California streams of like size. Moreover, in miniature it is almost a replica of the larger stream systems, such as the Klamath and the Eel.” Santa Cruz County also marks the southern boundary of the EPA’s Marine West Coast Forest Ecoregion (EPA 2006), and provides an ecologically logical southern boundary for coho salmon. Finally, Leidy et al. (2005) document collections of coho salmon in San Mateo Creek, San Mateo County, from 1860, pre-dating any known hatchery influence. If coho salmon could inhabit some southern San Francisco Bay streams on the landward side of the low-elevation coastal hills, it seems hard to make a credible argument that coho salmon are unable to survive in streams a short distance away on the cooler seaward side of those hills from these habitats. The undisputed declines of coho salmon populations in the south of San Francisco region are primarily the result of anthropogenic, not natural, factors. The Role of Hatchery Fish

plants has been discontinued in current times because of lack of success (ISAB 1998), but even so the fry plants would be roughly the production of 125 females. Coho salmon were commonly acknowledged to occur throughout Monterey Bay area streams by 1910 (Gilbert 1912; Snyder 1912; Scofield 1916) so for Kaczynski and Alvarado (2006) to be correct, the 250,000 coho salmon eggs planted as fry before 1908 would have had to been remarkably successful to account for their general acceptance, particularly in contrast to their current endangered state. Recent genetic studies of coho salmon south of San Francisco (Bjorkstedt et al. 2005; Bucklin et al. 2007) show the current populations in Scott and Waddell creeks closest relatives are fish from Marin County, directly to the north of the region in question. While these data (Bjorkstedt et al. 2005) do not directly prove that coho salmon are native to this area, they do indicate that coho salmon presently in the south of San Francisco region experience extensive gene flow with populations in other parts of the California Coastal Cost (CCC) Coho ESU and are not the result of the

Kaczynski and Alvarado (2006) propose that hatchery plantings made between 1906 and 1910 were responsible for subsequent observations of coho salmon in streams south of San Francisco. The fish numbers Kaczynski and Alvarado (2006:378) use to support their claim as “coho salmon … planted in streams south of San Francisco Bay” are in fact 500,000 fertilized coho salmon eggs brought into the Santa Cruz area from the state of Washington during the period from 1906–1910 and planted as fry. The practice of fry

Fisheries • vol 32 no 9 • september 2007 •


Washington state plantings. This genetic evidence also suggests that the Scott and Waddell creek populations are not descended from fish introduced from the Noyo River, as suggested by Kaczynski and Alvarado (2006), because there is significant genetic distance between these populations in the bootstrap consensus tree (Figure 2.2, Bjorkstedt et al. 2005; Figure 3, Bucklin et al. 2007). The genetic evidence shows particularly strong relationships among south of San Francisco populations (Bucklin et al. 2007) and Bjorkstedt et al. (2005) suggests that this may be the result of interbasin transfers of Kingfisher Flat Hatchery coho salmon within the south of San Francisco region. In addition, the statement in Kaczynski and Alvarado (2006:379) that “the latest genetic data for the stocks south of San Francisco do not support concordance between genetic and geographic population structure” is based upon examination of unpublished data provided to the authors. Two formal analyses of genetic data (Bjorkstedt et al. 2005; Bucklin et al. 2007) strongly contradict their statement and indicate a similar concordance between genetic and geographic distance in both the newer dataset and that described by Bjorkstedt et al. (2005). Finally, Kaczynski and Alvarado (2006) incorrectly state that Smith (2005) concluded that Kingfisher Flat hatchery operations are responsible for the continued presence of coho salmon south of San Francisco and that as of 2003, only a single year class persisted south of San Francisco (Smith 2004). Smith (2005) emphasized that a single year class had remained strong during his 1988-2005 studies, but that an accelerated growth program at the Kingfisher Flat restoration hatchery in the Scott Creek watershed probably was necessary for the restoration of coho salmon populations south of San Francisco Bay. Precocious returns from some accelerated growth fish reared at the restoration hatchery did strengthen or restore year classes on Scott and Waddell creeks in 1995 and 1997 and again in 2004 and 2006 (Smith 1995, 1998b, 2005, 2006). Straying Alternatively, Kaczynski and Alvarado (2006) argue that coho salmon populations south of San Francisco are the 446

result of straying. As noted above, coho salmon were found by Rutter and Scofield in 1895 in four geographically sequential streams south of San Francisco. In 1909 (only 14 years after the Rutter and Scofield collections), coho salmon were found in the San Lorenzo River (Snyder 1912) and in 1916 were considered commonly occurring there (Scofield 1916). The presence of coho salmon in these neighboring streams and the later presence in the San Lorenzo River argue strongly against the concept that these coho salmon are simply strays from more northern populations, especially since all four streams contain coho salmon today. The possibility seems remote that coho salmon strayed simultaneously and regularly into four geographically sequential streams from more northern streams in large enough numbers to be collected. The most parsimonious explanation is that coho salmon were found in those four streams at the same time because coho salmon populations persisted there and the widespread freshwater distribution of coho salmon argues that coho salmon had persistent, self-sustaining populations south of San Francisco. Information from the commercial ocean salmon fishery also helps in assessing whether natural coho salmon in the streams south of San Francisco Bay were strays that barely persisted in a marginal environment or constituted viable populations. The Monterey Bay fishery harvested substantial numbers of coho salmon even before the first coho salmon egg imports to the Brookdale Hatchery. Wilcox (1907:53) reported: Salmon in any considerable amount have been taken in Monterey Bay only since 1900, during which period the catch has increased. In 1904 the fishery began on May 27 and lasted until August 6....The catch in 1904 comprised 132,790 pounds of silver and 531,110 pounds of chinook salmon....Silver salmon weigh from 4 to 10 pounds each, the average being 6 pounds. Based on the average weight given in the quote, the coho salmon catch in 1904 would have amounted to about 22,130 fish. Published notes of the California Department of Fish and Game further indicate that substantial

numbers of coho salmon frequented the inshore waters south of San Francisco, particularly Monterey Bay (viz., Scofield 1919:198, 1920:175). Although the origins of those ocean-caught coho salmon are unknown, their significant presence in Monterey Bay in numbers much higher than occur today makes it less likely that only a few occasional strays entered the spawning streams south of San Francisco. Ocean Conditions Kaczynski and Alvarado’s (2006) assertions that the combination of periodic, decadal-scale linked warm unproductive California Current conditions and warm and dry inland climate create such stressful conditions in the area south of San Francisco that coho salmon persistence there would be extremely improbable are also questionable. Reasonably good information on the population dynamics of the freshwater phase of coho salmon in Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia is available including numbers of spawners and smolts produced in 14 streams (Bradford et al. 2000; Barrowman et al. 2003). Beverton-Holt models have been fit to these data to obtain the critical parameter regarding population persistence, α, the slope of the spawner/smolt relationship at the origin (i.e., at low abundance; Barrowman et al. 2003). Estimated values of α range from near 20 to 100 smolts/spawner. Information on survival through the ocean stage is also available, based primarily on coded wire tag data from Oregon and Washington, the Oregon Production Index (OPI) survival estimates (e.g., Botsford et al. 2005). There has been an increasing appreciation of the prevalence of long-term (i.e., decadal scale) variability in these data. A recent example is the decadal-scale decline in ocean survival of coho salmon from values near 10% in the early 1970s to values less than 1% in the 1990s (e.g., Botsford et al. 2005). More recent data show a population increase to 4% in 2001, which may have been associated with a decadal-scale shift to more favorable ocean conditions (Peterson and Schwing 2003). As a consequence of the long-term decline in survival, catch declined in the mid-1970s synchronously along the coasts of Washington, Oregon,

Fisheries • vol 32 no 9 • september 2007 •

and California (Botsford and Lawrence 2002). Identification of the prevalence of variability on long time scales presents the problem that sampling over longer times is necessary to establish the distribution of possible survivals. To explore the implications of these freshwater and marine data, Botsford et al. (2005) simulated coho salmon populations based on OPI survival rates and values of the slope of the spawner/smolt relationship at the high end and the low end of the estimated distribution of values (i.e., α = 20 smolts/spawner and α = 100 smolts/spawner, from Barrowman et al. 2003). Simulated abundance declined for both values of α, with populations for which α = 20 smolts/spawner dropping to extremely low values. The conclusion that can be drawn from this analysis is that populations of coho salmon with low values of α along the coast of Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia were indeed in great jeopardy during the 1980s and 1990s. Kaczynski and Alvarado (2006) took a different approach to persistence. They calculated static replacement rates as an indicator of likely persistence of popula-

tions at various latitudes, asking whether (fecundity) x (freshwater survival) x (marine survival) is less than one. In doing so, the authors offer a simplistic constant survival population equation to support their case. Their results depend directly on their choice of different values of freshwater survival at different latitudes. They used a value of 3% for the Oregon Production Index (OPI) area, based on five studies in Oregon and Washington (ODFW 1982). Their calculated replacement rates dropped from 8.4, a value adequate for replacement, in 1970 to a marginal value of 1.01 in 1980, then further to values inadequate for replacement in 1996. These follow the well-known trend in coho salmon survival. Kaczynski and Alvarado (2006) then chose a freshwater survival of 1%, and slightly lower female fecundities, for coho salmon south of San Francisco, to demonstrate that an ocean survival of 8.6% would be required for population persistence, a ocean survival value not seen anywhere since the mid-1970s. Kaczynski and Alvarado (2006:384) further emphasized that if they had chosen 0.5% as a freshwater survival rate, the

Fisheries • vol 32 no 9 • september 2007 •

required value of ocean survival would be 17.1%, "a value never seen." While these statements appear to cast doubt that there were persistent populations south of San Francisco, they are not likely to be true for two reasons: (1) the survival estimates from Oregon are biased low, and (2), we do not know what the freshwater survival was in the pristine streams south of San Francisco. The problem with the simple replacement approach is that unless the survivals were calculated in years in which the populations were on the increasing portion of the Beverton-Holt relationship, they will be biased low because they are constrained by the nonlinear nature of the relationship to be less than α, the true replacement capacity at low abundance. It is unlikely that these populations were on the lower abundance part of the curve because populations were not reported to be at low abundanace. In fact, the basis for the survivals given by Kaczynski and Alvarado (2006:384) was not given; rather they merely appeared in a table (Table II.B-1) with references to two other documents. The one document readily available (Moring and Lantz


1975) was a study of 14 years of sampling adults and the smolts they produced, in 3 streams. The authors remark, Despite the fact that numbers of spawners varied greatly during the years, numbers of outgoing smolts remained relatively steady from year to year,... which supports the presence of strong density-dependence and the fact that the "survivals" calculated did not represent replacement capacity, but rather the effects of density-dependent limitations on smolt abundance. Available information on survival of coho salmon south of San Francisco is limited to a study of four cohorts in a single spawning stream, Waddell Creek in the mid-1930s (Shapovalov and Taft 1954). Freshwater survivals ranged from 1.16 to 1.56. We can assume that values under pristine habitat conditions would have been greater. Four data points would not be sufficient to estimate α with reasonable precision or to establish distribution of ocean survival at this location. Combining the highest value of survival with fecundity of 1,168 female eggs per female indicates the value of α was greater than 18. Marine survivals ranged from 1% to 8%. The simulations in Botsford et al. (2005) address another issue raised by Kaczynski and Alvarado (2006), the effect on persistence of differences in spawning age structure of the populations due to precocious spawning. Kaczynski and Alvarado (2006) draw attention to the obligate semelparity (i.e., all spawning at age 3) of southern coho salmon, implying it will have a negative effect on their persistence. Two aspects of their argument are contradicted by existing information. The first is that the mechanism leading to precocious spawning involves better conditions for growth, not worse conditions as implied by Kaczynski and Alvarado (2006). The second is that, as shown by both these simulations and other analytical methods (Hill et al. 2002), while obligate semelparous populations do have a greater probability of extinction, this slight difference is so sensitive to small amounts of precocious spawning that in practical terms, it is inconsequential. A very low amount of precocious spawning will remove any 448

differences in the likelihood of extinction (Hill et al. 2002; Botsford et al. 2005). Kaczynski and Alvarado (2006) also state that ocean conditions and the rainfall driving stream conditions covary in such a way that when the California current is warm and unproductive (El Niño conditions), rainfall is less on land and the streams are dry. They refer to Kaczynski (1998) who drew this conclusion by noting several occurrences of drought conditions from the late 1970s to the 1990s. Other evaluations of this covariability from the primary literature do not support this conclusion. Warm, unproductive conditions in the California Current are associated with low coho salmon survival (e.g., Botsford and Lawrence 2002). Of the 11 El Niño-Southern Oscillation events between 1950 and 1982, 6 were unusually wet years, 4 were normal years and 1 was a drought (Schonher and Nicholson 1989). There is a correlation between lower rainfall and El Niño conditions at higher latitudes (Redmond and Koch 1991), but it declines from north to south, being much weaker in California than in Washington state. In summary, we have a reasonably comprehensive picture of the effects of the physical environment on coho salmon along the Pacific coast from Oregon to British Columbia over the past several decades. Unfortunately, we do not have the information necessary to perform the same analysis on populations south of San Francisco. Simple replacement rate calculations by Kaczynski and Alvarado (2006) present a biased view of persistence because they do not represent the true spawner/ smolt relationship. Comprehensive evaluation of persistence through simulations shows that some populations of coho salmon along the coast between Oregon and British Columbia could have declined to precariously low numbers, but they also indicate that an apparent lack of precocious spawning is not a reliable indicator of lower persistence. Lastly, the proposed reinforcing effect of drought conditions co-occuring with warm, unproductive ocean (i.e., El Niño conditions) in central California is not supported by relevant data.

False citations Kaczynski and Alvarado (2006:386) claim that “false citations and citations of erroneous information [are]…used to substantiate the hypothesis that coho salmon are native south of San Francisco.” In fact, their “false citations” are either careless errors in non-peer reviewed papers or simply assumptions of the obvious. We believe that the authors of most papers on these fish simply did not feel a need to justify coho salmon being native to the region. Even Shapovalov and Taft (1954), the authors of what is still the most complete coho salmon study in California, never questioned the idea that the fish were native there, stating, “The only introduced species in Waddell Creek is the Striped Bass.” Conclusions Existing evidence strongly supports coho salmon as being native to streams south of San Francisco, contrary to the arguments of Kaczynski and Alvarado (2006). The key evidence we have presented is summarized below: 1. Coho salmon were collected from four streams in the south of San Francisco region in 1895 by Rutter and Scofield. These collections were made long after a great deal of environmental degradation had already occurred. There is little reason to doubt that these collections, now in the CAS, are authentic coho salmon records, even though they were originally misidentified. The likelihoods of coho salmon randomly straying and spawning in these four streams are very small. 2. Early literature records only identify coho salmon as abundant from San Francisco northward, not as being absent south of San Francisco. The misidentified coho salmon from the 1895 Rutter and Scofield collections are included in the early literature records. 3. Coho salmon vertebrae have been found in a Native American midden at Año Nuevo in 2006 between Gazos and Waddell creeks. The archaeological evidence that Kaczynski and Alvarado (2006) cited has changed

Fisheries • vol 32 no 9 • september 2007 •

and now there is positive archaeological evidence for the presence of coho salmon in streams south of San Francisco. 4. While habitat at the southern edge of any species’ range is likely to be of less-than-optimal quality, there is no evidence that a distinct habitat or faunal change occurs at San Francisco Bay, while south of the San Lorenzo River has been identified as the southern boundary of the EPA’s Marine West Coast Forest Ecoregion (EPA 2006). 5. The probability that 500,000 salmon eggs brought to hatcheries between 1906 and 1910 could have established these coho salmon populations in the early twentieth century is extremely low, based on the success of hatchery plants elsewhere, and the hatchery origin hypothesis is inconsistent with the current available genetic evidence. In short, the case made by Kaczynski and Alvarado (2006) that coho salmon are not native south of San Francisco Bay is based on inadequate analysis of the existing information and an excessive willingness to accept information that favors their hypothesis, while discounting information that does not. Although in trying to establish historical range limits there will always be some uncertainty, a careful and thorough review of the historical and current information demonstrates that coho salmon are native south of San Francisco Bay.

Fisheries • vol 32 no 9 • september 2007 •

Acknowledgments We wish to thank David Catania for his help on the California Academy of Science collections, P. Fiedler for editorial assistance, and Jessica White, Catherine Johnston, and Allison Collins for literature research. Refereences Barrowman, N. J., R. A. Myers, R. Hilborn, D. G. Kehler, and C. A. Field. 2003. The variability among populations of coho salmon in the maximum reproductive rate and depensation. Ecological Applications 13(3):784-793. Bjorkstedt, E. P., B. C. Spence, J. C. Garza, D. G. Hankin, D. Fuller, W. E. Jones, J. J. Smith, and R. Macedo. 2005. An analysis of historical population structure for Evolutionarily Significant Units of Chinook salmon, coho salmon, and steelhead in the North-Central California Coast Recovery Domain. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SWFSC-382. Bœhlke, J. 1953. A catalogue of the type specimens of recent fishes in the Natural History Museum of Stanford University. Stanford Ichthyological Bulletin 5:1-167 Botsford, L. W., and C. A. Lawrence.2002. Patterns of covariability among California Current, chinook salmon, coho salmon, Dungeness crab, and physical oceanographic conditions. Progress in Oceanography 53(2-4):283-305. Botsford, L. W., C. A. Lawrence, and M. F. Hill. 2005. Differences in dynamic response of California Current salmon species to


changes in ocean conditions. Deep Sea Research (II Topical Studies in Oceanography) 52(1-2):331-345. Bradford, M. J., R. A. Myers, and J. R. Irvine. 2000. Reference points for coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) harvest rates and escapement goals based on freshwater production. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 57(4):677-686 Brown, L. R., P. B. Moyle, and R. M. Yoshiyama. 1994. Historical decline and current status of coho salmon in California. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 14(2):237–261. Bucklin, K. A., M. A. Banks, and D. Hedgecock. 2007. Assessing genetic diversity of protected salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) populations in California. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 64:30-42. CFGC (California Fish and Game Commission). 1913. Twentysecond Biennial Report for the years 1910-1912. CFGC, Sacramento, CA. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2006. Level I Ecoregions. EPA Western Ecology Division, Corvallis, Oregon. Available at ecoregions.htm. Follett, W. I. 1966. Fish species. Pages 85–86 in R. A. Gould, ed. Archaeology of the Point St. George site and Tolowa prehistory. University of California, Publications in Anthropology, volume 4, Berkeley. Gilbert, G. H. 1912. Age at maturity of the Pacific Coast salmon of the genus Oncorhynchus. Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Fisheries 32:1-32. Gobalet, K. W. 1990. Prehistoric status of freshwater fishes of the Pajaro-Salinas River system of California. Copeia 1990:690–685. _____. 1993. Additional archaeological evidence for endemic fishes of California’s Central Valley in the coastal PajaroSalinas basin. Southwestern Naturalist 38(3):218–223. Gobalet, K. W. and T. L. Jones. 1995. Prehistoric Native American fisheries of the central California coast. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 124:813–823. Gobalet, K. W, P. D. Schulz, T. A. Wake, and N. Siefkin. 2004. Archaeological perspectives on Native American fisheries of California, with emphasis on steelhead and salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 133:801-833. Hill, M. F., A. Hastings and L. W. Botsford. 2002. The effects of small dispersal rates on extinction times in structured metapopulation models. American Naturalist 160:389-402. ISAB (Independent Scientific Advisory Board, Northwest Power and Conservation Council). 1998. Review of artificial production of anadromous and resident fish in the Columbia River Basin. Document 98-33. Portland, OR. Available at: http:// Jordan, D. S. 1892a. Salmon and trout of the Pacific coast. Biennial Report of the State Board of Fish Commissioners of the State of California. 1891-1892 (12):44-58. _____. 1892b. Salmon and trout of the Pacific coast. California Fish and Game Commission Bulletin 4. State Office A.J. Johnston Superintendent State Printing, Sacramento. _____. 1894. Salmon and trout of the Pacific coast. Biennial Report of the State Board of Fish Commissioners of the State of California. 1893-1894 (13):125-141.


_____. 1904. Pacific species of salmon and trout. Biennial Report of the State Board of Fish Commissioners of the State of California. 1903-1904 (18):75-97. _____. 1907. Fishes. H. Holt and Company, New York. _____. 1922. The days of a man. Volume One, 1851-1899. World Book Company, New York. Jordan, D. S., and B. W. Evermann. 1896. The fishes of North and Middle America: a descriptive catalogue of the species of fishlike vertebrates found in the waters of North America, north of the Isthmus of Panama. United States National Museum, Washington, DC. _____. 1902. American food and game fishes: a popular account of all the species found in America north of the equator, with keys for ready identification, life histories and methods of capture. Doubleday Page and Co., New York. _____. 1904. American food and game fishes: a popular account of all the species found in America north of the equator, with keys for ready identification, life histories and methods of capture. Doubleday Page and Co., New York. _____. 1905. American food and game fishes: a popular account of all the species found in America north of the equator, with keys for ready identification, life histories and methods of capture. Doubleday Page and Co., New York. Jordan, D. S., C. H. Gilbert, and C. L. Hubbs. 1882. A synopsis of the fishes of NorthAmerica. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Kaczynski, V. W. 1998. Marine survival of Opia Hatchery coho salmon related to marine temperatures. Pages 131-147 in Proceedings of the 49 th Annual Pacific Northwest Fish Culture Conference. Idaho Department of Fish Game, Boise. Kaczynski, V. W., and F. Alvarado. 2006. Assessment of the southern range limit of North American coho salmon: difficulties in establishing natural range boundaries. Fisheries 31(8): 374-391. Leidy, R. A., G. Becker, and B. N. Harvey. 2005. Historical status of coho salmon in streams of the urbanized San Francisco Estuary, California. California Fish and Game 91: 219-254. Moring, J. R., and R. L. Lantz. 1975. The Alsea watershed study: effects of logging n the aquatic resources of three headwater streams of the Alsea River, Oregon. Part I-Biological Studies. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fishery Research Report 9. Corvallis, OR. Moyle, P. B. 2002. Inland fishes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley. ODFW (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife). 1982. Comprehensive plan for production and management of Oregon’s anadromous salmon and trout. Part II. Coho salmon considerations. ODFW Fish Division, Portland. Payne, S. M. 1978. A howling wilderness: a history of the Summit Road area of the Santa Cruz Mountains 1850-1906. Loma Prieta Publishing Co., Santa Cruz, CA. Peterson, W. P., and F. Schwing. 2003. A new climate regime in northeast Pacific ecosystems. Geophysical Research Letters 30 (17):1896. Redmond, K. T., and R. W. Koch. 1991. Surface climate and streamflow variability in the western United States and their relationship to large scale circulation indices. Water Resources Research 27:2381-2399. Sandercock, F. K. 1991. Life history of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Pages 395–446 in C. Groot and L. Margolis, eds.,

Fisheries • vol 32 no 9 • september 2007 •

Pacific salmon life histories. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver. Schonher, T., and S. E. Nicholson. 1989. The relationship between California rainfall and ENSO events. Journal of Climate 2:1258-1269. Schulz, P. D. 1995. Prehistoric fish remains, thicktail chub, from the Pajaro River system. California Fish and Game 81(2): 82–84. Scofield, N. B. 1916. The humpback and dog salmon taken in San Lorenzo River.California Fish and Game Quarterly 2(1): 41. _____. 1919. Commercial fishery notes. Salmon at Monterey Bay. California Fish and Game 5(4):198. _____. 1920. Commercial fishery notes. Silver salmon at Monterey in 1920. California Fish and Game 6(4):175. Shapovalov, L., and A. C. Taft. 1954. The life histories of the steelhead rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri gairdneri) and silver salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) with special reference to Waddell Creek, California, and recommendations regarding their managment. California Department of Fish and Game Fish Bulletin 98:1–375. Shipley, W. 2002. The Awáswas language. Pages 173-181 in L. Yamane, ed. A gathering of voices. The native peoples of the central California coast. Santa Cruz County History Journal, Issue 5. Smith, J. J. 1992. Distribution and abundance of juvenile coho and steelhead in Waddell, Scott and Gazos creeks in 1992. Department of Biological Sciences, San Jose State University, San Jose, CA. _____. 1994. Distribution and abundance of juvenile coho and steelhead in Scott and Waddell creeks in 1988 and 1994: implications for status of southern coho. Department of Biological Sciences, San Jose State University, San Jose, CA. _____. 1995. Distribution and abundance of coho and steelhead in Gazos, Waddell and Scott creeks in 1995. Department of Biological Sciences, San Jose State University, San Jose, CA. _____. 1996. Distribution and abundance of coho and steelhead in Gazos, Waddell and Scott creeks in 1996. Department of Biological Sciences, San Jose State University, San Jose, CA. _____. 1998a. Distribution and abundance of juvenile coho and steelhead in Gazos, Waddell and Scott creeks in 1998. Department of Biological Sciences, San Jose State University, San Jose, CA. _____. 1998b. Distribution and abundance of juvenile coho and steelhead in Gazos, Waddell and Scott creeks in 1997 and the implications for status of southern coho. Department of Biological Sciences, San Jose State University, San Jose, CA. _____. 2004. Distribution and abundance of juvenile coho and steelhead in Gazos, Waddell and Scott creeks in 2003. Department of Biological Sciences, San Jose State University, San Jose, CA.

_____. 2005. Distribution and abundance of juvenile coho

Fisheries • vol 32 no 9 • september 2007 •


and steelhead in Gazos, Waddell and Scott creeks in 2004. Department of Biological Sciences, San Jose State University, San Jose, CA. _____. 2006. Distribution and abundance of juvenile coho and steelhead in Gazos, Waddell and Scott creeks in 2006. Department of Biological Sciences, San Jose State University, San Jose, CA. Snyder, J. O. 1912. The fishes of the streams eliminate of tributary to Monterey Bay, California. Bulletin of the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries 32:47-72 _____. 1931. Salmon of the Klamath River, California. California Division of Fish and Game Bulletin 34. Weitkamp, L. A., T. C.Wainwright, G. J. Bryant, G. B. Milner, D. J. Teel, R. G. Kope, and R. S.Waples. 1995. Status review of coho salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-24. Wilcox, W. A. 1907. The commercial fisheries of the Pacific Coast stocks in 1904. U.S. Bureau of Fisheries, Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries for the Fiscal Year 1905 and Special Papers 612. Washington, D.C. Yoshiyama, R. M. 1999. A history of salmon and people in the Central Valley region of California. Reviews in Fisheries Science 7:197–239.

OBITUARY: Steve A. Berkeley Steven A. Berkeley, 60, died at his home in Scotts Valley, California, on 27 June 2007 following a year-long battle with cancer. Berkeley held a bachelors degree from Beloit College and an M.S. in marine science from the University of Miami, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences (RSMAS). He was a research associate at RSMAS from 1979 to 1981, where he conducted studies on the life history and population dynamics of small and large pelagic fishes such as halfbeaks, several species of clupeids, swordfish, and pelagic sharks, and was involved in research to evaluate the utility of ichthyoplankton surveys for resource assessment in the Gulf of Mexico. From 1984–1993, Berkeley was a fishery biologist with the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council in Charleston, South Carolina. During his years at the council, he contributed to development of fishery management plans, worked to implement policies to modify gear and reduce bycatch in pelagic longline fisheries, participated in sonic tracking research on blue marlin to determine release mortality, and pursued research on age, growth, and stock structure of billfish and swordfish. Throughout his productive career as a fishery scientist, Berkeley was engaged in efforts aimed at shaping fisheries management. He worked as a research scientist for eight years in the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife of Oregon State University in Newport. During this period, his research focused on life-history strategies of long-lived fishes and how recruitment is influenced by maternal effects, environmental factors, and fishing. Recently, Berkeley’s and colleagues’ research on Pacific rockfish (Sebastes spp.) demonstrated that large, old females produce offspring that grow faster, are in better condition, and survive better, indicating they may be more important than smaller female contributors to the spawning stock necessary for maintaining populations. This concept came to be known colloquially as the “big, old, fat female” hypothesis. Advocates of marine protected areas (MPAs) were quick to recognize that MPAs could help to conserve large, old females in harvested stocks, and Berkeley’s research helped to build momentum for MPAs, especially along the West Coast. 452

In 2001, he became a research biologist at Long Marine Laboratory, University of California at Santa Cruz, where he worked in close collaboration with NOAA fishery scientists, principally his wife Susan Sogard, at the Southwest Fishery Science Center’s Santa Cruz Laboratory. His recent research also included studies of pelagic longline fisheries, especially the life history strategies, behavior, ecology, and population dynamics of swordfish and billfish, as well as the biology and early life history of sablefish. In addition, Berkeley was involved in graduate education at both academic institutions, serving on and cochairing graduate student committees. Throughout his career, Berkeley was sought out to serve on many influential advisory bodies. For example, his expertise in large pelagic species led to several appointments with the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), e.g., U.S. scientific delegate and technical advisor to the ICCAT Commissioners and U.S. Highly Migratory Species Advisory Committee. He served on the Scientific and Statistical Committees of the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council and Pacific Fishery Management Council and was a reviewer for the Pew Charitable Trusts living resource conservation program. Berkeley’s many professional contributions are evidenced by a strong record of presentations at conferences of the American Fishery Society, the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Gilbert Ichthyological Society, ICCAT, the Western Groundfish Conference, International Billfish Conferences, and others, and in many publications in widely

read journals, e.g., Fisheries, Fishery Bulletin, Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Ecology, Bulletin of Marine Science, Marine Ecology Progress Series, and Environmental Biology of Fishes. An active member of the American Fisheries Society since 1991, Berkeley served as president of the Marine Fisheries Section from 1998–2000, organized numerous technical symposia at the Annual Meetings, was a member of the Fisheries Action Network, and was the principal author of influential position papers on highly migratory species. He was an active and passionate member of the Board of Directors for the Fisheries Conservation Foundation (FCF). A member since its inception, he not only brought his insight and expertise to FCF, but his optimism and energy played a key role in the development of FCF campaigns and projects on marine issues. An endowed scholarship in Berkeley’s name is being established through the American Fisheries Society Marine Fisheries Section to support graduate students in marine fisheries. Contributions may be made out to the American Fisheries Society (for the Steven Berkeley Marine Conservation Fellowship) and mailed to the American Fisheries Society, 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110, Bethesda, MD 20814. On a personal note, I knew Steve Berkeley as a valued friend and colleague for almost 30 years. He was an intelligent, warm, kind, energetic, and generous man, and a dedicated fishery scientist. He reveled in robust outdoor life as an avid fisherman, snowboarder, kayaker, runner, hiker, etc. While I know he wanted a longer life, he lived his life to the fullest and attained as much from his allotted 60 years as possible. He will be missed on many levels. —Churchill Grimes

Fisheries • vol 32 no 9 • september 2007 •

Innovative Solutions Lotek multi-mode tools bridge telemetry architectures Mobile positioning SYNAPS for mobile positioning & MAP RT

Nature is rarely as simple as any one tool that we may design to study it. The more complex the application, the greater the need for innovative telemetry solutions that bridge technology platforms. Since 1984, Lotek Wireless has been designing leading-edge telemetry tools and architectures using every available technology: radio, acoustic, archival and satellite.

Fine scale positioning

ALPS for wireless positioning, WHS 3050 (L) & Dual Mode OTN Tags (R)

When no single tool or technology suffices, we combine them to create the more complete telemetry architectures that our clients need to answer their complex questions. For example: Our SYNAPS mobile positioning system combines MAP and GPS technologies to allow mobile tracking in 2D or 3D. Dual Mode OTN Tags provide compatibility between fine scale and coastal receiver arrays by transmitting both MAP and ‘VR’ signals. LAT geolocation tags give researchers the ability to track on a global scale.

Global scale positioning

Geolocation LAT 2510

CART tags combine acoustic and radio transmissions in a single tag that can follow anadromous species through both fresh and salt water environments. Contact us for innovative solutions for your complex applications.

Delivering innovative solutions for a sustainable future. Telephone: E-mail: Web site:

905-836-6680 [email protected]

Fisheries • vol 32 no 9 • september 2007 •



Many of the 150 La Paz meeting participants gather for a group picture.

Mexico Chapter Meets with Mexican Fisheries Society in La Paz After adopting its formal constitution in 2006, the Mexican Chapter of AFS and the Mexican Fisheries Society held their first biannual meeting 2–4 May 2007 in La Paz, B.C.S., Mexico, with an attendance of over 150 participants. Mexico professionals were joined by 11 AFS members representing the California-Nevada (Cal-Neva) Chapter, the Western Division, Montana Chapter, as well as the AFS Governing Board and International Fisheries Section. Many distinguished speakers presented updated information at the conference. While most information was in Spanish, our bilingual colleagues provided translation assistance. One of the first plenary speakers was Ma. del Carmen Carmona from the Mexican National University (UNAM). Carmen reviewed Article 27, new legislation

that addresses fisheries and aquaculture in Mexico. This new legislation offers many opportunities for Mexico, as its fishery and aquaculture would be managed by regions rather than as one unit. John Stein from North Pacific Marine Science Organization (PICES) explained the goals and vision of the international organization. Mary Fabrizio talked about the American Fisheries Society’s new marine science journal. She also stressed the importance of students to the organization, and the development of a new disaster relief fund, created in response to Hurricane Katrina. Gus Rassam stressed three reasons why international cooperation is needed: our ties through globalization, environmentalism and its maturation, and the fact that many of our resources, including fisheries, are reaching a crisis point. Three plenary talks were featured in the symposium on “Challenges of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences in Mexico”: Daniel Lluch-Belda repre-

senting the Mexican Chapter and the Mexican Fisheries Society, Martín Botello from the National Commission for Fisheries and Aquaculture (CONAPESCA), and Miguel Angel Cisneros from the National Fisheries Institute (Instituto Nacional de la Pesca; INP). Cisneros gave an outline of the strategic plans for fisheries sciences in Mexico, including: (a) creation of food resources, (b) regulation of commercial fisheries and aquaculture, (c) technology evaluation and fish processing quality, (d) creation of employment, (e) reduction of poverty, and (f) investment versus subsidization. He also talked of the importance of achieving sustainability and the potential use of aquaculture to recover coastal species. During conversations after his presenta-

Mauricio Ramírez Rodríguez, Lourdes Rugge, and Gus Rassam proudly display their awards.

AFS members enjoy an evening social on the La Paz beach.


Fisheries • vol 32 no 9 • september 2007 •

tion, Cisneros indicated AFS could help with two questions: 1. Should Mexico concentrate efforts to develop aquaculture for a few species or take advantage of its diverse climate regions and develop culture for several different species? 2. What kind of activities can be developed in Mexican coasts as economically viable alternatives to reduce fishing pressure? Mauricio Ramírez-Rodríguez, Salvador Lluch-Cota, Bob Hughes, and Jeff McLain discussed ways in which AFS could help Cisneros. The Mexico Chapter will request additional detail regarding these questions and it is likely the Cal-Neva and Mexico Chapters, as well as Western Division, will develop a team to address these issues. A total of 97 oral and 42 poster contributions covered diverse aspects of marine and freshwater fisheries in 4 concurrent sessions. The program was particularly loaded with papers on top predators’ biology, ecology and fisheries, coastal and benthic fisheries, fisheries modeling, management, and socioeconomic aspects. Three

side activities were hosted during the meeting: the XV Annual Meeting of the Small Pelagics Technical Committee, with over 20 presentations on sardine and anchovy fisheries sciences; a roundtable session on the concept of fishing down marine food webs as applied to the Gulf of California; and a half-day Dave Manning of the Cal-Neva Chapter gets the catch of the day. workshop on fisheries legislation, particularly the of the upcoming conference in San recently approved fisheries and aquaFrancisco. During the business meetculture law initiative. Projects initiated ing, Gus Rassam, and Lourdes Rugge, by these activities included a memas well as Bern Megrey, Eric Knudsen, oirs book and meeting minutes for Guillermo Compeán (former INP directhe pelagics committee participants, tor), and Mauricio Ramírez Rodríguez a perspective/review paper commis(past president of the Mexican sioned by the food webs roundtable Chapter) received awards from the participants, and a video/audio memMexico Chapter for their help with oir being edited by the legislation its development. Congratulations workshop coordinator. Abstracts and thank you for your hard work! and/or presentations are available on A marine sciences book show CD for the entire meeting by request also was coordinated by Ana María online at Talamantes, a professional librarian and During the second day’s plenary, Chapter member, with participation which included the Mexico Chapter from the American Fisheries Society, business meeting, Dave Manning, PICES, the hosting institution CIBNOR, general chair for the 137th AFS Annual and other four academic Mexican Meeting, presented a brief preview institutions. In the art

Mexico and Cal-Neva Chapter members, and special guests, pose in front of a conference banner.

Fisheries • vol 32 no 9 • september 2007 •

exhibition and contest, the winning painting, called “El pescador dichoso” (“the happy fisherman”) will be used as the central image of the second biannual meeting to be held in Ensenada, Baja California, Mexico, in 2009. The Executive Committee of the Mexican Chapter organized a series of activities to define strategies to increase participation within AFS, particularly on the formation of a bid to host the AFS Annual Meeting in Mazatlan, Mexico in 2011. These activities 455

Continued from page 423

Some attendees also enjoyed sightseeing and fishing trips, and even contributed their fresh catch to the meeting’s closing dinner. Bob Hughes and Dave Manning show off their catch of the day.

included meetings with AFS officers (Guss Rassam, Mary Fabrizio, Robert Hughes, Jeff McLain, Dave Manning, Lourdes Rugge); an informative meeting with professional conference organizer representatives; communications with several institutions in Mexico, particularly INP (Miguel Angel Cisneros, Luis Belendez); scheduling a preparatory visit of the Mexican Chapter executive committee and key invited people (including Dave Manning) to the

proposed venue in July; and formation of a committee led by the new Mexico Chapter treasurer, Felipe Amezcua, to coordinate the bid preparation process. The meeting was successful in four key ways: in the quality of presentations, in the large number of student participants, in finances, and in continuing international cooperation. This success was mostly the result of enthusiastic participation of the local organizing committee, which included CIBNOR personnel and local institutions’ students; the involvement of INP, CIBNOR, CICIMAR, and CICESE scientists; and the continuous support and sponsorship from the Western Division, the CalNeva Chapter, and the Socioeconomics and International Fisheries Sections of AFS. We look forward to continued collaboration at the international level. —Jeff McLain and Salvador E. Lluch-Cota

The Names of Fishes Committee meeting in Gainesville included (left to right): James D. Williams, Nicholas E. Mandrak, Joseph S. Nelson, Carter R. Gilbert, Robert N. Lea, Lloyd T. Findley, and Hector Espinosa-Pérez. Photo by Walter R. Courtenay, Jr.

Names of Fishes Committee Meets in Gainesville, Florida A very productive meeting of the “Committee on Names of Fishes” (an AFS Standing Committee, a joint committee with the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists) was held at the Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, 27–30 March 2007. Richard L. Mayden, another member of this group, was unable to attend because of scheduling conflicts. Many other ichthyologists in the Gainesville area attended the meetings and offered their opinions. The committee appreciated the warm hospitality of several local ichthyologists in their homes. The Names of Fishes Committee deals with matters concerning common and scientific names of fishes, and prepares checklists of names to achieve uniformity and avoid confusion in nomenclature. Progress was made in Gainesville for the 7th edition of Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico, planned for 2010. It was with regret that Jim Williams decided to retire from the committee after contributing his expertise and much appreciated work during his many years of service. We are pleased that Larry M. Page of the Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville, was appointed to the committee. The next dedicated committee meeting of several days length will be held in early 2009. —Joseph Nelson and Walter Courtenay 456

G gene sequence controls virulence. Virulence Comparisons of Infectious Hematopoietic Necrosis Virus U and M Genogroups in Sockeye Salmon and Rainbow Trout, by Kyle A. Garver, William N. Batts, and Gael Kurath. Journal of Aquatic Animal Health 18:232243. Kurath can be contacted at [email protected] Best Paper in the North American Journal of Aquaculture The use of black carp to rid farmed channel catfish ponds of parasite-carrying snails has long been controversial. The black carp is a nonnative species in the United States, and many fisheries scientists worry about the potential consequences of an accidental release of black carp on endangered mussel populations. However, catfish farmers contend black carp are necessary to eliminate the snails that now carry a new exotic trematode, Bolbophorus damnificus, which sickens their fish and ruins their fillets. In an award-winning paper in the North American Journal of Aquaculture, researchers from Mississippi State University tested two other native species against black carp to determine their snail munching abilities. Various sizes of redear sunfish, blue catfish, and black carp were offered various sizes of rams-horn snails. While all three species ate snails, black carp did indeed eat the most snails, thanks in part to their large mouth size and crushing molars. However, video recordings of the tanks showed that black carp (and blue catfish) also ate young channel catfish and catfish food. Redear sunfish, although limited in the size of snails it can consume, may be an effective native control alternative to the black carp. A Comparison of Black Carp, Redear Sunfish, and Blue Catfish as Biological Controls of Snail Populations, by Jonathon J. Ledford and Anita M. Kelly. North American Journal of Aquaculture 68:339-347. Kelly can be contacted at [email protected]

Fisheries • vol 32 no 9 • september 2007 •


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.)

To see more event listings go to and click click Calendar of Events. Oct 2-3—Second Thermal Ecology and Regulation Workshop, Westminster, Colorado. See www.rd.tetratech. com/ Contact Bob Goldstein, [email protected], 650/855-2593. Oct 8-11—Second International Symposium on Tagging and Tracking of Marine Fish with Electronic Devices, San Sebastian, Guipuzcoa, Pais Vasco, Spain. See Oct 9-10—Symposium on Anadromous Salmonid Tagging and Identification Techniques in the Greater Pacific Region, Portland, Oregon. See www.rmpc. org/2007-marking-symposium. html. Contact [email protected], 503/595-3100. Oct 9-10—Seattle-Bioneers Conference 2007, Seattle, Washington. See Oct 9-12—International Symposium: Wild Trout IX, West Yellowstone, MT. Contact Dirk Miller, [email protected], 307/777-4556. Oct 15-17—Third International Sustainable Marine Fish Culture Conference, Fort Pierce, FL. See Contact Amber Shawl, [email protected], 772/465-2400 x578. Oct 15-18—Institute of Fisheries Management Conference, Westport, Co. Mayo, Ireland. Contact Stephen Axford, stephen. [email protected]

Oct 18-20—Recirculating Aquaculture Systems: Principles of Design and Operation, Fort Pierce, FL. See www.aquaculture-online. org. Contact Amber Shawl, [email protected], 772/465-2400 x578. Oct 21-24—Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Annual Meeting, Charleston, WV. See www. Oct 23-24—Sixth Practical Short Course: Aquafeed EUROASIA 2007: Aquaculture Feed Extrusion, Nutrition, and Feed Management, Istanbul, Turkey. See aquafeed 2007.htm. Contact Ignace Debruyne, [email protected], +32 (0)51 31 12 74. Oct 23-25—Fundamental Contaminant Chemistry: A Review of Chemistry Principles Essential for Understanding Contaminant Behavior in the Environment, Honolulu, Hawaii. See Contact Kristine krobinson, [email protected] Oct 24-25—Contaminant Chemistry and Transport in Soil and Groundwater: An Overview of Petroleum, Chlorinated Hyddrocarbon, and Metal Behavior in the Environment, Honolulu, Hawaii. See www.nwetc. org/chem-403a_10-07_honolulu. htm. Contact Kristine krobinson, [email protected] Oct 24-27—Aquaculture Europe: European Aquaculture Society and Eurasia Trade Fairs, Istanbul,

Fisheries • vol 32 no 9 • september 2007 •

Turkey. See agenda/en/AquaEuro2007/Aqua200. asp.Contact Bob Goldstein, [email protected], 650/855-2593. Nov 4-8—2007 Estuarine Research Federation Meeting: Science and Management Observations/ Synthesis/Solution, Providence, Rhode Island. See Contact Charles Farris, [email protected], 978/318-8336. Nov 20-23—Eighth Asian Fisheries Forum, Kochi, India. See Dec 9-12—68th Midwest Fish and Wildlife conference, Madison, Wisconsin. See

2 0 0 8 Feb 24-28—Advances in Tagging and Marking Technologies in Fisheries Management and Research, Auckland, New Zealand. See www. Feb 28-Mar 2—Southern Division of the American Fisheries Society and West Virginia Chapter of AFS, Wheeling, WV. See AFS www.sdafs/org/meetings. Jul 7-11—11th International Coral Reef Symposium, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. See 11/11icrs. Contact Nancy Copen, [email protected], 301/634-7010. Aug 17-21—138th Annual Meeting of the American


Column: Guest Director’s line Collaborative Science: Moving Ecosystem-Based Management Forward in Puget Sound Recent calls for improving ocean health have advocated implementing ecosystem approaches to the management of marine environments (e.g., USCOP 2004). Although scientific principles for implementing such approaches are being developed (e.g., Francis et al. 2007), much of the challenge of practicing ecosystem-based management (EBM) lies in applying it to local systems. The challenges are scientific, logistical, financial, and political, and include conveying scientific information accurately and using it transparently. A common statement from the scientific community clearly articulating what is known about an ecosystem can provide positive momentum from which decision makers and scientists can work together in EBM implementation (van Cleve et al. 2004). Recently, science and policy leaders encouraged natural and social scientists in the Puget Sound region to take an important step towards implementing ecosystem-based management by synthesizing current understanding of the structure and function of the marine ecosystem. The document— Sound Science: Synthesizing Ecological and Sociological Information about the Puget Sound Ecosystem­—describes in accessible language the connections among biotic, physical, and human elements of the ecosystem (Sound Science 2007). The motivation for the report is that a common understanding of the ecosystem that is broadly supported by scientists will help managers and policy leaders make more informed decisions as they pursue regional objectives for Puget Sound. The process of developing this common vision was central to the report’s value, and may serve as a model for other scientific collaborations supporting regionally-focused EBM. 458

Facilitating a Largescale, Multi-disciplinary Collaboration The Puget basin lies between the crests of the Cascade and Olympic mountain ranges and encompasses approximately 2,330 km2 of inland marine waters and their shorelines (Figure 1). Stunning in appearance, the Puget Sound hosts over 340 marine and terrestrial species on state and federal endangered species lists. An effort to protect and restore the ecosystem is being led by a publicprivate partnership (Puget Sound Partnership 2006) and a newly-minted state agency coordinating the multistakeholder ecosystem coordinated board established in 2007 (WA SB 5371 2007-08). The effort is ambitious—$300 million for the first two years—and over-arching; it is charged with recovering the sound by 2020 using the best scientific principles. The initial partnership adopted six ecosystem goals encompassing both natural ecosystem and human health and well-being elements. Sound Science was developed to support this and other conservation efforts in the region. Four elements of the process leading to this collaborative report were particularly important for its success. The first was early and ongoing discussion between scientists and natural resource managers and policy makers. Second was deliberation among scientists spanning many disciplines and organizations. Third was providing multiple opportunities for participation in refining content. Finally, a formal signing and transfer of the report to state government increased awareness and use of this project as legislation was being crafted and as implementation of a new EBM approach begins.

Michelle McClure and Mary Ruckelshaus McClure and Ruckelshaus are research fishery biologists at the NOAA Fisheries Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, Washington. McClure can be contacted at [email protected] and Ruckelshaus can be contacted at [email protected] Science-policy discussions Discussion with managers and policy-makers occurred throughout the development of Sound Science, making the report relevant to current and future management issues. Scientists became more confident that their results would be interpreted correctly and used in practice. We initiated this collaboration with a joint policy-science discussion to identify key policy issues that could be informed by ecosystem science. This meeting included overview presentations and facilitated discussion open to all. Sound Science was maintained as a strictly scientific document, without policy judgments or statements—critical for eventual acceptance by a broad array of policy makers. Review comments from policy and management experts improved clarity and relevance of issues included in the document. Widespread participation Sound Science was created from the input of more than 30 contributors and benefited from the insight of over 100 natural and social science reviewers representing more than 35 organizations­—universities, nongovernmental organizations, tribes, county, state and federal agencies,

Fisheries • vol 32 no 9 • september 2007 •

industry, and the public. This inclusion ensured that the groups with interest in the health and management of Puget Sound had opportunities to provide scientific input. Having both academic and agency scientists provided a balanced perspective of conceptual underpinnings and pragmatic applications. The process of creating a common statement from natural and social scientists highlighted the value of considering both human and natural elements of the ecosystem. The human element is a component that is often missing from analyses informing EBM, but is a critical one, since such management efforts usually depend on changing human behavior (Hennessey and Sutinen 2005). Opportunities to participate Gathering broad scientific input required soliciting participation in many ways. After a core group of contributors created a first draft, scientists, managers, policy makers, and the public reviewed the content. A second discussion draft responding to the reviews served as the basis for an open workshop. Advertised broadly, this workshop allowed all interested parties to provide input into the final report. Discussions focused on key areas for ecosystem-based management: human interactions, landscape processes, food webs, and habitats. For each topic, groups identified areas of agreement and disagreement and threats to the system, while prioritizing critical gaps in our understanding for each topic. Then a whole-group facilitated discussion addressed primary threats to ecosystem functions, key gaps in understanding, ecosystem responses to perturbations, and the process for finalizing Sound Science. A steering committee including expert scientists and others from 14 organizations served as a final arbiter in areas of disagreement or controversy between reviewers or workshop participants, and ensured an accurate and broadly-accepted final report.

Substantive agreement

experts in areas of emerging interest including climate change and ocean effects on human health (Box 1). These forward-looking treatises discuss potential futures for the region and key gaps in scientific understanding, both essential components of robust adaptive management programs.

A challenge in developing any common statement is finding agreement on content that is detailed enough to move scientific and policy discussions forward. Three particular aspects of this synthesis are useful in this regard. First, it includes graphics synthesizing a common view from sciCelebrating entists. For instance, we found no simple figure illustrating the primary The final key element leading to oceanographic and bathymetric the success of Sound Science was a features of the inland marine waters public acceptance of the document of Washington State. These features by federal, state and tribal govern(Figure 2)—shallow sills, incoming ments and transfer to the state. salty, cold water, and outflowing Twelve organizations (Box 2) were fresher water—contribute to stratificasignatories who formally presented tion and retention of de-oxygenated the report to Washington Governor waters and likely are contributing Gregoire (Figure 4), recognizto extreme events of low dissolved ing the collaborative EBM effort at oxygen in areas like Hood Canal. Second, Sound Science emphasizes the executive and legislative levels the strong linkages between terrestrial and marine systems in Puget Sound, Figure 1. Puget Sound Basin. For the purposes of the Sound Science environments which report, the Puget Sound region includes the northern basin and the typically are studied Strait of Juan de Fuca. and managed by different groups. Transfer of organic and inorganic materials between these environments contributes to shoreline habitats and substantial quantities of marine-derived nutrients are delivered to upland and freshwater systems through animal movement (Figure 3). This ecological perspective, emphasizing the importance of biotic and abiotic transport between terrestrial and aquatic habitats, is important for those designing restoration. Third, Sound Science includes “issue papers,” reviewed by the steering committee and written by

Fisheries • vol 32 no 9 • september 2007 •


Figure 2. Circulation patterns in Puget Sound, Washington. Cold, salty water enters the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and tends to sink to the bottom, while lighter, fresher water flows out in upper layers. However, sills at the entrance to Admiralty Inlet, Hood Canal and at the Tacoma Narrows cause upwelling and reflux, and restrict some freshwater circulation.

Figure 3. Relative magnitude of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) returns to river basins in the Puget Sound ecosystem. The width of arrows indicates relative number of Chinook salmon migrating into rivers to spawn, which is an indication of the potential amount of marine-derived nutrients transported upstream by this species.

of state government and offering policy-makers additional confidence in the content. Moving Forward—Using Sound Science Sound Science is a strong foundation for ongoing collaborative scientific work to support the recovery of Puget Sound as a source of natural and social benefits. The Puget Sound Partnership is using it to guide ongoing science analyses as part of their nascent EBM process. It was written for an educated lay audience and designed for outreach and education efforts. Since only about 20% of current residents are aware that the Puget Sound ecosystem is not healthy, outreach and education are essential tasks. Sound Science will be included in marine biology programs offered at high schools, community colleges, and universities, and it has been provided to other organizations interested and invested in Puget Sound. With its comprehensive and straightforward presentation, Sound Science will improve public understanding of Washington’s inland marine ecosystem. The status of Puget Sound does offer bright spots— including the high value citizens place on the wide range of goods and services that the ecosystem provides, such as seafood, recreation, natural beauty, and transportation. There is good reason to believe that concerted and immediate actions will allow the Puget Sound region to halt or reverse declines in ecosystem health. Documents like Sound Science, produced in an open process with diverse contributors, are powerful tools for making scientific knowledge available to policy leaders and individual citizens whose investment decisions will determine the future of ecosystems.


Fisheries • vol 32 no 9 • september 2007 •

Box 1. Key findings from the Sound Science document. The report concluded that the following issues are critical to improving the condition of the Puget Sound ecosystem: • An understanding of the whole ecosystem, including human roles in its structure and function, is needed to support complex management decisions. Cumulative pressures require that management decisions take a holistic perspective, considering both human and natural processes, in order to increase the likelihood that the ecosystem can be managed sustainably. • Climate change will result in significant weather, rainfall, flooding and other changes, affecting which species can prosper in the Sound, our livelihoods and quality of life. Proactive planning for water use and urban development has the potential to moderate some of these effects. • Ecosystem food webs and functions have been significantly altered but are poorly understood. Species at risk include rockfishes, Pacific salmon, orcas, herring, marine birds (including shorebirds), and Pacific cod. Conservation efforts aimed at top-level predators should also consider the forage species and habitats upon which they depend. • Human population growth and patterns of land development, waste disposal, and other resource uses are increasing demands on the ecosystem. The quantity and quality of available habitats for other species are diminishing due to this population growth and climate change. Conservation strategies that maximize the ecosystem benefits that can be gained from mixed landscapes, including agriculture and timberlands, may help alleviate impacts of urbanization. • Because the health of humans is inextricably linked to ocean and broader ecosystem health, the input of toxic chemicals, and increases of marine biotoxins and pathogens are threats to human well-being and our economy. • Collaborative efforts at all levels are needed to develop scientific information and implement robust actions. These include cooperative efforts between natural and social scientists and between scientists and policy-makers.

Box 2. Signatories to the Sound Science document. NOAA—Northwest Fisheries Science Center Environmental Protection Agency King County Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission Puget Sound Action Team The Nature Conservancy of Washington State U.S. Geological Survey University of Washington Washington State Department of Ecology Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Washington State Department of Health Washington State Department of Natural Resources


Literature cited

We would very much like to thank the members of the Sound Science collaboration group, all our reviewers, and our technical writer, Ann Seiter. In addition, Bill Ruckelshaus, currently of the Puget Sound Partnership, provided agitation in support of a commonvision document for Puget Sound. Finally, Usha Varanasi provided extremely strong vision and leadership for the initiation, development, and production of Sound Science.

Francis, R. C., M. A. Hixon, M. E. Clarke, S. A. Murawski, and S. Ralston. 2007. Ten commandments for ecosystem-based fisheries scientists. Fisheries 32(5): 217-233. Hennessey, T. M., and J. G. Sutinen. 2005. Sustaining large marine ecosystems: the human dimension. Elsevier Press, Amsterdam. Puget Sound Partnership. 2006. Sound health, Sound future. Protecting and restoring Puget Sound. Puget Sound Partnership recommendations. Available at: Sound Science. 2007. Sound Science: synthesizing ecological and socioeconomic information about the Puget Sound ecosystem. Mary Ruckelshaus and Michelle McClure, coordinators; prepared in collaboration with the Sound Science collaborative team. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NMFS), Northwest Fisheries Science Center. Seattle, Washington. Available at shared/sound_science/index.cfm. USCOP (U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy). 2004. An ocean blueprint for the 21st century. USCOP, Washington, DC. Van Cleve, F. B., C. Simenstad, F. Goetz, and T. M. Mumford. 2004. Ecosystem restoration: lessons learned from large-scale restoration project efforts in the USA (Technical Report 2004-01). Available at www. pugetsoundnear­

Figure 4. The transmittal ceremony for Sound Science with Washington State Governor Gregoire. (left to right): Randy Shuman (King County), Frank Shipley (U.S. Geological Survey), Usha Varanasi (Northwest Fisheries Science Center, NOAA Fisheries Service), Jacques White (The Nature Conservancy of Washington), Bernard Hargrave (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), Richard Parking, (Environmental Protection Agency), Jeff Koenings (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife), Jay Manning (Washington Department of Ecology), Brad Ack (Puget Sound Action Team), David Fluharty (University of Washington), Douglas Sutherland (Washington Department of Natural Resources), and Gregg Grunenfelder (Washington Department of Health).

Fisheries • vol 32 no 9 • september 2007 •


The Ontario Chapter of the American Fisheries Society and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources will host the 138th Annual Meeting of the American Fisheries Society in downtown Ottawa, Ontario, 17–21 August 2008. The meeting’s theme, “Fisheries in flux: how do we ensure our sustainable future," addresses the ongoing challenge of confronting change when managing fisheries. Fisheries and fish communities are not static properties of ecosystems. Stressors such as exploitation, species invasions, climate change, and water resource demand are a few of the factors that drive changes. These changes potentially threaten sustainable use. Can we find solutions to these threats? What are we doing to ensure a sustainable future and what changes need to be made in our management of aquatic ecosystems?

General Information Aquatic resource professionals are invited to submit symposia proposals and abstracts for papers in a range of topics and disciplines. Participation by scientists at all levels and backgrounds, especially students, is encouraged. The scientific program includes two types of sessions: symposia (oral and poster presentations that focus on a single topic) and contributed papers (oral and poster presentations on any relevant topic). Oral presentations are limited to 20 minutes (15 minutes for presentation plus 5 minutes for speaker introduction and questions). All oral presenters are expected to deliver Powerpoint presentations. Presenters must bring their PowerPoint file to the meeting on CD or USB flash memory stick by 7 p.m. the evening before their presentation. Laptop computers and LCD projectors will be provided and technicians will be available to help. Traditionally, symposia have been dominated by oral presentations and sometimes supplemented by posters. Next year’s meeting will experiment with a new symposium format that encourages greater use of posters in order to shorten the time demands of symposia. This new format elevates the profile of symposium posters through a "speed presentation sub-session" that provides a time slot for short (i.e., 3 minute) oral presentations and dedicated viewing of symposium posters. See the "Speed Presentation" box for details.

Symposia The Program Committee invites proposals for symposia. Topics must be of general interest to AFS members. Topics related to the meeting theme will receive priority. Symposium organizers are responsible for recruiting presenters, soliciting their abstracts, and directing them to submit their abstracts through the AFS online abstract submission form. A symposium should include a minimum of 10 presentations and the time requested should not exceed two days (i.e., about 40 oral presentations). Regular oral presentations are limited to 20 minutes, but double time slots (i.e., 40 minutes) may be offered to keynote speakers. Posters associated with a symposium will be presented in the "speed presentation" format (see box). Symposium organizers are urged to consider this poster format as an efficient means of communication that reduces time required for scheduling symposia. Symposium proposals must be submitted by 11 January 2008 via e-mail to Mark Ridgway ([email protected]) with the proposal attached in the correct format in MS Word or WordPerfect; please contact Mark Ridgway (address and phone below) if you do not receive confirmation by January 18. The Program Committee will review all symposium proposals and notify organizers of acceptance or refusal by 4 February 2008. If accepted, organizers must submit a complete list of all confirmed presentations and titles by 22 February 2008. Symposium abstracts (in the same format as contributed abstracts; see next page) are due by 29 February 2008.

What is a “Speed Presentation?" “Speed Presentation” refers to a sub-session of a symposium that showcases posters. The speedy part is the oral presentation. The subsession begins with a series of 3-minute talks (3 slides per speaker) during which each speaker advertises a poster. Following the minitalks, speakers attend their posters for a one-hour period and address questions from interested parties. Speed presentation sub-sessions will be scheduled into the symposia program. Symposium posters will be displayed as a group within the general poster area and remain posted for the duration of the conference. The target number of posters in each sub-session is 10, allowing completion of the oral portion in 30 minutes and the entire sub-session in 90 minutes.

Ottawa Fact: Ottawa is the capital of

Ottawa Tourism

Canada, home to the Canadian Parliament. Parliament Hill, perched atop a bluff along the Ottawa River, is just a short walk from the Ottawa Congress Centre and AFS meeting hotels. The current buildings were completed in 1920, after a disastrous fire in 1916 destroyed all of the Centre Block, except the Library of Parliament. Parliament Hill is open to visitors all summer—you could catch the daily “Changing of the Guard” ceremony, take a tour of the buildings, hear a noon concert played on the 53-bell, 60-ton carillon housed in the Peace Tower or see the spectacular Sound and Light show playing every evening. 462

Fisheries • vol 32 no 9 • september 2007 •

Format for Symposium Proposals 1. Symposium title: Brief but descriptive 2. Organizer(s): Provide name, address, telephone number, fax number and e-mail address of each organizer. Indicate by an asterisk the name of the main contact person. 3. Description: In 300 words or less, describe the topic addressed by the proposed symposium, the objective of the symposium, and the value of the symposium to AFS members and participants. 4. Format and time requirement: Indicate the mix of formats (oral and poster). State the time required for regular oral presentations (i.e. 20 minutes per speaker) and the time required for speed presentations and poster viewing (3 minutes per speaker plus one hour of poster viewing). 5. Chairs: Supply name(s) of individual(s) who will chair the symposium. 6. Presentation requirements: We encourage speakers to use PowerPoint for presentations. All Mac-based presentations must be converted to PC format prior to the meeting. Presentations in other software programs must be approved prior to acceptance. 7. Audiovisual requirements: Symposium chairs must provide a PC-interface laptop computer for their session. LCD projectors will be available in every room. Other audiovisual equipment needed for the symposium will be considered, but computer projection is strongly encouraged. 8. Special seating requests: Standard rooms will be arranged theatre-style. Please indicate special seating requests (for example, “after the break, a panel discussion with seating for 10 panel members will be needed”). 9. List of presentations: Please supply information in the following format: Presenter’s Name Tentative title of presentation Confirmed (yes/no) Format (oral/speed presentation) 1. _________________________ __________________________ _ ________________________ _________________________________ 2. _________________________ __________________________ _ ________________________ _________________________________ 10. Sponsors: If applicable, indicate sponsorship. A sponsor is not required.

Contributed Oral and Poster Papers The Program Committee invites abstracts for presentations (oral and poster) at contributed paper sessions. Authors must indicate their preferred presentation format: (1) oral only, (2) poster only, (3) oral preferred, but poster acceptable. Only one oral presentation will be accepted for each senior author. Poster submissions are encouraged because of the limited time available for oral presentations. The program will include a dedicated poster session to encourage discussion between poster authors and attendees. Abstracts for contributed oral and poster papers must be received by 8 February 2008. All submissions must be made using the AFS online abstract submission form, which is available on the AFS website ( When submitting your abstract: • Use a brief but descriptive title, avoiding acronyms or scientific names in the title unless the common name is not widely known; • List all authors, their affiliations, addresses, telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses; • Provide a summary of your findings and restrict your abstract to 200 words. All presenters will receive a prompt e-mail confirmation of their abstract submission and will be notified of acceptance and the designated time and place of their presentation by 30 April 2008. For contributed papers, please indicate which two general topics best fit the concept of your abstract. Topics include: Bioengineering, Communities and Ecosystems, Contaminants and Toxicology, Education, Fish Culture, Fish Health, Fish Conservation, Freshwater Fish Ecology, Freshwater Fisheries Management, Genetics, Habitat and Water Quality, Human Dimensions, Marine Fish Ecology, Marine Fisheries Management, Native Fishes, Physiology, Policy, Population Dynamics, Statistics and Modeling, Species Specific (specify), and Other (specify). Late submissions will not be accepted. AFS does not waive registration fees for presenters at symposia, workshops, or contributed paper sessions. All presenters and meeting attendees must pay registration fees. Registration forms will be available on the AFS website ( in May 2008; register early for cost savings.

Meeting logistics and planning: Dave Maraldo Fisheries Section, MNR [email protected] 705/755-1906

Symposia: Mark Ridgway Aquatic Science & Development Section, MNR [email protected] 705/755-1550

Format for Submitted Abstracts For abstracts submitted to a Symposium Enter Symposium title: __________________________ Specify format: (1) Oral (2) Speed presentation (i.e., Poster) For abstracts submitted as a Contributed Paper Enter 2 choices for topic:_________________________ Specify format: (1) Oral (2) Poster (3) Oral preferred, but poster acceptable Title: An example abstract for the AFS 2008 Annual Meeting Authors: Lester, Nigel. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 2140 East Bank Drive, Peterborough, Ontario K9J 7B8; 705-755-1548; [email protected] Maraldo, Dave. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 300 Water St., Peterborough, Ontario K9J 8M5; 705/755-1906; [email protected] Abstract: Abstracts are used by the Program Committee to evaluate and select papers for inclusion in the scientific and technical sessions of the 2008 AFS Annual Meeting. An informative abstract contains a statement of the problem and its significance, study objectives, principal findings and application, and it conforms to the prescribed format. Student presenter? (Work being reported was completed while a student): No


Contributed papers: Nigel Lester Aquatic Science & Development Section, MNR [email protected] 705/755-1548

Fisheries • vol 32 no 9 • september 2007 •

Posters: Tim Haxton Southern Science, MNR [email protected] 613/258-8240

Organizing a continuing education course or workshop: Craig Woolcott J J Howard Marine Science Lab [email protected]


Announcements: JOB CENTER

EMPLOYERS: To list a job opening on the AFS Online Job Center submit a position description, job title, agency/company, city, state, responsibilities, qualifications, salary, closing date, and contact information (maximum 150 words) to [email protected] 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.

To see more job listings go to Fisheries Monitoring Crew Members (5), coastal Mendocino County, Callifornia. Duration: 1 November 2007 to mid-May 2008. Responsibilities: Under the direction of crew leaders, crew members participate in collecting data for regional monitoring of California's coastal salmonids in Mendocino County. Primary responsibilities include operation of weirs and traps, conducting spawning ground surveys, and operating smolt traps. Other responsibilities include data management, field and laboratory equipment care, maintenance, and repair, data entry, and operation of ATVs and 4wd vehicles. Ability to identify, mark, and handle salmonids, hike or kayak up to five miles in adverse weather, keep clear and accurate data records, and follow established protocols. Salary: ~$13.20 per hour. Closing date: 5 November 2007. Contact: For application information, see: Fisheries Technician Pool for Northern California at www.; For more information contact: Sean P. Gallagher, email: [email protected] California Department of Fish and Game, 306 East Redwood, Fort Bragg, CA 95437. Phone 707/964-1492 Oregon Sea Grant Director, Oregon State University/Corvallis, Oregon. Responsibilities: Provides overall leadership for Oregon Sea Grant, and oversee a total annual budget of approximately $5,000,000, and approximately 60 staff and faculty who carry out research, administrative, communication, and outreach services. Reports to the university vice president for research. 464

Qualifications: A terminal degree with professional experience and a record of excellence in research/ scholarship, policy, and/or management in marine, coastal, natural resources or a related field are required. Significant experience with natural resource issues. Preference will be given to candidates with a demonstrated commitment to the Land Grant/Sea Grant concept of research, education, and outreach. Salary: Commensurate with experience. Closing date: Until filled. Apply: applicants/Central?quickFind=51786 Contact: Chair, Sea Grant Director Search Committee, c/o Eric Dickey, A322 Kerr Administration Building, Oregon State University, Corvallis OR 97331; 541/737-2715; eric. [email protected] Assistant Professor Riparian Ecology, College of Natural Resources, Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, University of Idaho, Moscow. Responsibilities: Academic year, tenure track assistant professor. 40% teaching; 40% scholarship; 20% advising/outreach/service. Successful candidate expected to develop comprehensive, externally funded research program involving graduate students; teach undergraduate course in riparian ecology and management; participate in other undergraduate courses as needed; teach a graduate course in riparian ecology, management, and restoration; and a graduate course in specialty area. Qualifications: Successful candidate must have Ph.D. with focus on riparian ecology emphasizing impacts of humans on riparian systems

from headwater systems to large rivers, biotic-abiotic interactions, and restoration; must demonstrate successful research productivity through external funding and refereed publications; and must demonstrate a commitment to teaching excellence. Post-doctoral or equivalent experience desired. Closing date: Review begins 12 October 2007 and continues until successful candidate identified. Contact: Apply online at www. Questions can be addressed to Carrie Barron at [email protected] Ph.D. Assistantship in Fish Reproductive Biology and Population Dynamics, University of North Carolina, Wilmington Responsibilities: Estimation of batch fecundity and spawning frequency for black sea bass and red porgy in the U.S. South Atlantic. Project will involve field sampling, histological analyses, and population modeling. Work as part of a team of collaborators representing UNCW, NC Sea Grant, South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, and NOAA. Qualifications: Student should have already completed an MS. degree in fisheries, natural resource management, or a related field and should be able to demonstrate strong academic ability. Some offshore sampling experience is recommended. Salary: Annual stipend of $21,000 with some tuition support. Closing date: 30 November 2007. Contact: Send statement of interests, cv, and contact information for three references to: Fred Scharf ([email protected]), Department of Biology and Marine Biology,

Fisheries • vol 32 no 9 • september 2007 •

UNCW, 601 South College Road, Wilmington, NC 28403. Ph.D. Graduate Research Assistantship—Larval Sturgeon Survival in Reservoir Headwaters, Montana Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Montana State University, Bozeman. Responsibilities: Describe the factors that influence survival of larval shovelnose and pallid sturgeon in reservoir headwater environments. Specific objectives to be addressed are: (1) describe the transition zone and headwater habitat in Ft. Peck Reservoir, (2) experimentally

evaluate larval pallid sturgeon and shovelnose sturgeon behavior and survival at different developmental stages in controlled environments simulating the river, transition zone, and headwater environments; and (3) experimentally evaluate larval pallid sturgeon and shovelnose sturgeon survival at different developmental stages in river, transition zone, and headwater environments in situ. Qualifications: M.S. in fisheries, ecology, or a related field and a minimum 3.0 GPA and 1100 (verbal + quantitative) GRE score. Quantitative skills are required, as are a good work ethic, creativity, a commitment

2008 Membership Application

to research productivity (publishing and presenting), ability to work both independently and cooperatively, and professional activities (e.g., AFS). Stipend: $1,450 per month, plus non-resident tuition waiver. Closing date: 30 November 2007. Contact: Send letter of interest, resume, reprints, names and contact information for three references, reprints, and copy of transcripts and GRE scores (photocopies, scans, and e-mail attachments acceptable) to Christopher Guy; [email protected] edu; Montana Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Department of Ecology, Montana State University, Bozeman,


American Fisheries Society • 5410 Grosvenor Lane • Suite 110 • Bethesda, MD 20814-2199 301/897-8616 x203 or 218 • fax 301/897-8096 • Name Please provide (for AFS use only) Employer Address Phone Industry Fax Academia E-mail Federal gov't. City State/province Recruited by an AFS member? yes__ no__ State/provincial gov't. Zip/postal code Country Name Other MEMBERSHIP TYPE (includes print Fisheries and online Membership Directory) North America/Dues Other Dues Developing countries I (includes online Fisheries only) N/A $ 5 Developing countries II N/A $25 Regular $76 $88 Student (includes online journals) $19 $22 Young professional (year graduated) $38 $44 Retired (regular members upon retirement at age 65 or older) $38 $44 Life (Fisheries and 1 journal) $1,737 $1,737 Life (Fisheries only, 2 installments, payable over 2 years) $1,200 $1,200 Life (Fisheries only, 2 installments, payable over 1 year) $1,000 $1,000 JOURNAL SUBSCRIPTIONS (optional) North America Other Journal name Print Online Print Online Transactions of the American Fisheries Society $43 $25 $48 $25 North American Journal of Fisheries Management $43 $25 $48 $25 North American Journal of Aquaculture $38 $25 $41 $25 Journal of Aquatic Animal Health $38 $25 $41 $25 Fisheries InfoBase $25 $25 Payment Please make checks payable to American Fisheries Society in U.S. currency drawn on a U.S. bank or pay by VISA or MasterCard. Check P.O. number Visa MasterCard Account # Exp. date Signature All memberships are for a calendar year. New member applications received January 1 through August 31 are processed for full membership that calendar year (back issues are sent). Those received September 1 or later are processed for full membership beginning January 1 of the following year. Fisheries, Vol. 32 No. 9, Sept. 2007

Fisheries • vol 32 no 9 • september 2007 •


Montana 59717, USA. For more information go to www.montana. edu/mtcfru/Guy/gradopp.html. Ph.D. Assistantship in Fish Physiological Ecology, Oregon State University, Department Fisheries and Wildlife, Corvallis. Responsibilities: Work on project to investigate the use of sub-populationlevel metrics to assess freshwater salmonid habitat quality, and to develop methods to supplement population-level monitoring when evaluating the effectiveness of habitat restoration efforts. Qualifications: Minimum qualifications include M.S. degree in a biological field, GPA > 3.0 and GRE scores in the upper 50th percentile. Strongest applicants will have high GPA and GRE scores, strong field and laboratory skills, and peer-reviewed publications. Applicants must apply to OSU through the OSU Graduate Admissions Office, http://oregonstate. edu/admissions/graduate.html Salary: $21,000 per year plus tuition. Closing date: 31 December 2007. Contact: Send a CV with GPA and GRE scores, reference contact information, a letter of interest, and publications to Scott Heppell, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, 104 Nash Hall, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331; Scott. [email protected]; 541/7371086; Chief of the Illinois Natural History Survey, a Division of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources and an affiliated agency of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Responsibilities: The chief is the survey's top administrator with responsibility for the staff, programs and finances of the 466

Survey, and is the principal interface with state and federal agencies, interest groups and the public. Qualifications: Must possess a Ph.D. in the biological sciences. Must have a research / publication record; demonstrated strong management, interpersonal, and leadership skills; and demonstrable written and verbal communication skills. Experience in successfully managing a complex scientific organization and interacting with governing boards and advisory groups is highly desirable. Deadline: 1 November 2007. Contact: For application requirements and complete position description visit our website at www.inhs.uiuc. edu/opportunities. E-mail questions to [email protected] Assistant Hatchery Manager, Kodiak Regional Aquaculture Association, Kitoi Bay Hatchery (25 miles from Kodiak, Alaska, by floatplane or boat). Responsibilities: All aspects of hatchery operations, including coho and sockeye rearing and release, maintaining water quality and quantity, and other operational tasks. Schedule and supervise seasonal staff, makes evaluations, share on-call 24hour site responsibilities, and manage the facility for specified periods. Qualifications: B.S. in aquaculture, fisheries or related major, with minimum 2 years experience as fish culturist or assistant manager at a salmon hatchery or aquaculture facility. Strong multi-species fish culture background. Experience may be substituted for education on a case-by-case basis. Related prior experience with increasing levels of responsibility, with favorable employer evaluations regarding experience, skills, aptitude, and attitude.

Salary: Salary depends on experience. Generous benefits include furnished housing and utilities, 403(b), insurance, and excellent outdoor recreation. Closing date: Open until filled. Contact: Send resume and references to Drew Aro and Kevin Brennan, [email protected], or call 888/486-6555. Assistant Professor of Fish Physiology/Aquaculture, Fisheries and Illinois Aquaculture Center, Department of Zoology, Southern Illinois University Carbondale. Responsibilities: 12-month, tenuretrack assistant professor, 75% research in the Fisheries and Illinois Aquaculture Center, 25% teaching in zoology. Will be expected to develop an externally funded research program, supervise M.S. and Ph.D. students, and teach environmental physiology of fish and comparative endocrinology or another course in his/her specialty. See announcement at Qualifications: Ph.D. in appropriate field, record of peer-reviewed publications and scholarly accomplishments commensurate with experience, demonstrated grant success or strong evidence of funding potential. Preference given applicants with postdoctoral teaching and research experience and membership in the AFS and/or WAS. Closing date: Open until filled. Contact: Forward curriculum vitae, statement of teaching, research interests and plans, transcripts from all institutions attended, representative reprints, and have four letters of reference sent to Christopher Kohler, Fisheries and Illinois Aquaculture Center, MC-6511, SIUC, Carbondale, Illinois 62901. E-mail inquiries (not applications) to [email protected]

Fisheries • vol 32 no 9 • september 2007 •

fish•ing track•le: [fish•ing track•uhl]

Equipment, apparatus or gear for fish related field research projects. From tracking the location and depths of individual fish to collecting spawning and migratory data on juveniles and adults in rivers and lakes, no one offers you more freshwater fish knowledge than ATS.


Fisheries • vol 32 no 9 • september 2007 • www.fisheries .org WWW.ATSTRACK.COM MINNESOTA. 763-444-9267

467 [email protected]

Smith-Root, Inc.'s

FULLY INTEGRATED All SMITH-ROOT ELECTROFISHING BOATS come fully equipped with an integrated, on-board electrofishing system powered by a Kohler marine generator.

Forward Work Deck

Steering and Control Console -With GPP Control Panel and Safety Footswitch

-Non-slip Matting -Operator Footswitches -Snag-proof railing

Side Storage Compartments (EH only) -Space in both Gunwales for storing longer items (oars, dipnets, etc.)

Electrode Booms -Fully adjustable to fit any situation

Generator Engine Housing -Fan cooled enclosure

Forward Storage Compartment BOTH(AND%( -With lockable hatches

Lights: -Halogen Headlights -Navigation Lights -Work Lights -Deck Lights -Stern Flood Lights

Fish Holding Tank -With self-contained recirculation system and lighting

Motor and Trailer -options are available

Hull and Transom

to suit your specific needs

-Rugged, welded and riveted aluminum hull design and reinforced, heavy-duty transom assures long life

COMES FULLY EQUIPPED. While many options are available, you’ll find very little need to add anything.


Fisheries • vol 32 no 9 • september 2007 •



American Fisheries Society •

Fisheries Vol 32 no 9 september 2007 American Fisheries Society • Fish News Legislative Update Journal Highlights Calendar Job Cen...

6MB Sizes 0 Downloads 0 Views

Recommend Documents

No documents