Tracing the Disappearance of a Sacramento Population in ’s Central Valley

Ryan L. Hitchings, Dr. John R. Durand, Dr. Peter B. Moyle, Teejay O’Rear

University of California, Davis Center for Watershed Sciences Department of Wildlife, Fish and Conservation Biology Introduction The Sacramento Perch (Archoplites interruptus) is the only centrarchid endemic to California. It is native to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, Clear Lake, the Pajaro and Salinas rivers, and tributaries of the San Francisco Estuary (Crain and Moyle 2011). Once a major commercial and sustenance fishery, their numbers have declined dramatically since the turn of the 20th century (Marchetti 1997). All extant populations were planted in isolated ponds, lakes, and reservoirs. In 2015, they were designated a Species of Special Concern by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, with critical status (Moyle et al. 2015). Extirpation from most of their historic range is probably due to habitat alteration, changes in flow regimes, and non-native species introductions (Crain and Moyle 2011). While a combination of environmental changes and introduced species within their native habitat have likely been the major cause for their decline, the primary threat to reestablishment efforts appears to be the presence of non-native centrarchids due to egg and fry predation (Crain and Moyle 2011).

Figure 1. Historical Sacramento Perch distribution (from Aceituno and Nicola 1976.) Sacramento Perch have a life history consistent with most other centrarchids, with some notable differences. The species is known to live up to 9 years. Each life stage has different requirements, but the species exhibits a wide tolerance for variable conditions. Spawning may occur between the months of March through October and in water temperatures between 18° and 28°C, but usually occurs in spring. Sacramento Perch are nest builders that prefer to in proximity to structure, but structure is not required (Crain and Moyle 2011). After the mating ritual, eggs are deposited at the nesting site. Males guard the nest for 2-4 days, which is short compared to other centrarchid species (Crain and Moyle 2011). After swim-up, larvae remain in and around algae or aquatic plants until the juvenile stage. In the juvenile stage, fry shoal together, moving into progressively deeper water as they grow, eventually becoming solitary (Crain and Moyle 2011). Juveniles feed on insects, especially chironomids, while the diet of adults is composed primarily of other fish and large invertebrates. Adult diets are adaptable and can shift to zooplankton when competition or prey abundance becomes limiting (Bliesner 2005). Studies also suggest that given a choice between Daphnia sp. and larvae, the fish prefer mosquito larvae (Chris Miller, Contra Costa County Vector Control, unpublished data). Sacramento Perch habitat can be broadly described as littoral (Abimael et al. 2008). Although specific habitat features vary, structure is a unifying theme, and may consist of submerged branches, rocks, algae, or aquatic plants (Crain and Moyle 2011). Structure is especially important for juveniles since nests are only guarded until the eggs hatch, which leaves juvenile fish more vulnerable than other species (Crain and Moyle 2011). Adult fish are typically camouflaged with dark, vertical bars, suggesting an association with aquatic vegetation (Marchetti 1999). In response to competition, adult Sacramento Perch will shift habitat use to less vegetated waters, increasing risk of predation (Marchetti 1999). In 2008, there were eight populations of Sacramento Perch across Nevada and California with potential for use in reestablishment efforts (Schwartz and May 2008). Though historically present in Clear Lake, Sacramento Perch have not been captured in recent surveys, so the current population status is unknown (Crain and Moyle 2011). Sacramento Perch populations in California (Max Fish, CDFW, personal communication), including Curved Pond and Jameson Pond, both of which are located on the UC Davis campus within the Putah Creek Riparian Reserve (PCRR). In 1979, 37 Sacramento Perch were released in Curved Pond. Between 2012 and 2016, drought conditions coincided with higher-than-average temperatures across California, creating the most extreme conditions on record (Durand et al. 2020). Because PCRR Sacramento Perch populations had not been sampled since a drought survey conducted in 2015 (Appendix 5), I surveyed them in 2020 and 2021 to determine the status of the populations and to update Crain and Moyle (2011).

Methods Study Sites

Figure 2. Map of study sites located in Solano County, CA. Jameson Pond (Green), Curved Pond (Blue), Beaver Pond (Yellow). Not to scale.

History

Curved Pond, Beaver Pond, and Jameson Pond are all located in Solano County on UC Davis property. The first Sacramento Perch population was established in Curved Pond in 1979 when UC Davis professor Peter Moyle released 37 adults, along with four Prickly Sculpin (Cottus asper). The original Curved Pond fish were captured in Lake Greenhaven, an unused quarry that became a source for many Sacramento Perch populations. The quarry had connectivity with the Sacramento River, suggesting that most of the fish were naturally occurring (Peter Moyle, pers. comm.) In the 1990’s Michael Marchetti captured Sacramento Perch from Lagoon Valley Reservoir to use in a study. After his study was complete, the remaining Sacramento Perch were released into Curved Pond. In 2003, an unknown quantity of Sacramento Perch was moved from Curved Pond and released into Jameson Pond. The exact genetic lineage of fish moved from Curved to Jameson Pond (e.g. Lagoon Valley Reservoir vs. original Curved Pond stock) is unknown.

Pond Characteristics

Jameson Pond is approximately one acre and serves as a discharge pond for the UC Davis Center for Aquatic Biology & Aquaculture (CABA). Water is supplied via a near-constant flow of cold groundwater pumped from CABA. The pond is surrounded by California black oak, Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), and California black walnut. Bulrush occupies much of the surrounding banks, and on the northern end, it grows dense enough to create an island-like cluster. Bank vegetation is primarily Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus) and annual grasses. Curved Pond is one-half acre and receives its water from the CABA Putah Creek Facility. Bank vegetation is dominated by Italian thistle and bulrush, and also includes Fremont Cottonwood (Populus fremontii), California Black Oak, and California Black Walnut (Juglans californica). Water travels from CABA down a drainage ditch into Beaver Pond (acreage?), before flowing into Curved Pond. From Curved Pond, water is discharged into a shallow freshwater . The most striking feature of both ponds is the proliferation of duckweed on the surface. Beaver Pond is completely covered by duckweed, while Curved Pond surface cover varies based on wind.

Overview

Between September 2020 and February 2021, Curved, Jameson, and Beaver ponds were sampled using a combination of clover traps, minnow traps, and hook-and-line sampling. Between 9/29-9/31. The following week Curved and Beaver ponds were sampled using hook- and-line methods. Jameson Pond was not sampled with hook-and-line. During the week of September 2, 2020, two sondes were deployed concurrent with trapping in both Jameson and Curved ponds to measure water-quality fluctuations over five days. During this period, two clover traps and six minnow traps were deployed in Curved Pond, while Jameson Pond had four clover traps and 10 minnow traps, and all clover traps were baited using miniature hotdogs. Thereafter, all sampling was done in four-day periods with two clover traps in Curved Pond and four clover traps in Jameson Pond. Hook and Line Sampling For hook-and-line sampling, an assortment of baitcasting and spinning reels were used with 60-lb braided line. A BOOYAH Pad Crasher™ Jr. in Leopard Frog and a Backstabber Frog in Mud Brown were used. Trap Locations In Curved Pond, two traps were placed on the north end, and two were placed on the south end (Figure 2). Initial site locations were selected based on proximity to cover. After two days with zero fish captured, traps were moved so that one trap was on the north end, and three were on the south end. When minnow traps were used, they were initially placed near the clover traps on the north end, then gradually moved closer to shore over the course of the sampling period. Mosquito traps were never baited. In Jameson Pond, traps were deployed generally around the center region (Figure 2). Trap location was adjusted based on results and proximity to structure, but with the exception of the week of 1/11/21, traps always remained within a 2-m radius of their original locations. During the week of 1/11/21, vegetation assemblage had changed such that there was considerably less cover on the water surface, so traps were moved to be closer to surface vegetation. Minnow traps were deployed close to shore on the southern end of the pond.

Marking

After capture, Sacramento Perch and Sacramento Blackfish (Orthodon microlepidotus) from Jameson Pond were marked by having a portion of the soft dorsal fin trimmed flat. Largemouth Bass in Curved Pond were released without being marked. Sacramento Perch fins were trimmed approximately 1 cm from the dorsal due to their rapid regrowth rate (Figure 3) (Max Fish, CDFW, personal communication).

Figure 3 Top: Dorsal fin before fin clipping. Note worn caudal fin. Bottom: Trimmed dorsal fin.

Results

Fish Community Composition by Pond Across All Methods

Sacramento Perch Largemouth Bass Sacramento Blackfish Western Mosquitofish

43 45 40 35 30 25 25 1… 20 15 15 10 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Jameson Pond Curved Pond Beaver Pond

Figure 4. Distribution of fish at each study site. Beaver Pond was only sampled with hook and line.

During sampling, 25 Sacramento Perch were trapped with zero recaptures; all were in Jameson Pond. Jameson Pond also produced 17 Sacramento Blackfish (Orthodon microlepidotus) and 43 Western Mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis) (Figure 4). The mean total length for Sacramento Perch was 16 cm (Figure 5). In Curved and Beaver ponds, 20 Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides) were captured via a mix of clover traps and hook- and-line sampling (Figure 6). Hook-and-line sampling revealed bass as large as 35 cm. Western Mosquitofish were not captured via trapping but were observed in Curved Pond. Curved Pond was warmer, more turbid, more acidic, and had lower chlorophyll-a and dissolved-oxygen (DO) levels than Jameson Pond. Approximately 40% of the water surface of Curved Pond was covered with duckweed (Lemna sp.). Duckweed distribution varied throughout the day with prevailing wind. On the southern end, substrate was generally muddy and covered in a layer of dead bulrush (Schoenoplectus californicus). Beaver Pond was also inundated with duckweed, but coverage was so dense that it had no room to shift with wind.

Figure 5 Sacramento Perch size distribution by sampling effort.

Largemouth Bass size distribution. Figure 6

Table 1 Averages of water-quality parameters collected in 15-minute increments between 9/28/20 and 10/02/20.

Water Quality Site Temperature (°C) DO (mg/L) Sal (ppt) pH Chlorophyll a (μg/L) Curved Pond 19.53 4.78 0.23 8.43 0.23 Jameson Pond 18.65 10.92 0.42 8.22 1.82

Discussion

Curved and Jameson ponds are two very different ecosystems, and this was reflected in our initial site assessment of pond size, exposure, terrestrial vegetation, and aquatic weed composition. These differences were also reflected in the fish community composition and water-quality of the ponds. Curved Pond was warmer, while Jameson Pond was generally cooler Although Sacramento Perch were historically regarded as a warm-water fish, recent research suggests they do well in cooler water (Bliesner 2005, Woodley 2007). The constant flow of water, along with the presence of shading trees, likely contributes to the consistently lower temperatures in Jameson Pond. In contrast, most of Curved Pond is exposed to near- constant sunlight, and its north-south orientation coincides with prevailing local wind currents to create a regime of constant mixing. Wind and sunlight should raise dissolved oxygen and chlorophyll-a levels, but dense duckweed inhibits phytoplankton respiration. One explanation for the disappearance of Sacramento Perch from Curved and Beaver ponds is that the ponds experienced an anoxic fish-kill event prior to the introduction of Largemouth Bass. Using climate data and existing literature on anoxic events, this probably occurred shortly after September 2015. This hypothesis is supported by a previous, unpublished study conducted in September of 2015. During that study, Sacramento Perch, Prickly Sculpin, Western Mosquitofish, and Stickleback were all captured using very similar methodology to our study (see Appendix 5). Largemouth Bass were not captured during that sampling effort. Our sampling did not capture any species other than Largemouth Bass; the complete decimation of an entire assemblage from the introduction of one additional species seems unlikely. Additionally, the 2015 study makes no mention of duckweed. Between 2015 and 2020, duckweed became a major component of both ecosystems. Inundation of ponds with surface vegetation and water mixing via wind have been implicated in anoxic fish-kill events (Lembi 2009). Anoxia can also be driven by sudden influx of carbon into aquatic ecosystems, especially when mixing occurs at high levels, as it does in Curved Pond (Kragh et al. 2020). In 2015, the State of California averaged 0.78 inches of rain; in 2016, precipitation drastically increased to 4.88 inches, which could explain a sudden influx in carbon content (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, accessed 2021). An alternative explanation is that Sacramento Perch were outcompeted by or preyed on by Largemouth Bass. Based on established length-age relationships, the larger Largemouth Bass were likely ~3 years old (Schneider et al. 2000). It is impossible to determine the true cause of introduction, but it is not uncommon for anglers to illegally stock ponds with fish. Putah Creek, a popular local bass stream, flows 100 m from Beaver Pond; at such a short distance, transporting a fish from the main Putah Creek channel to Beaver or Curved ponds would not pose much of a challenge. Since 2015, three out of four species of fish in Curved Pond have died out, and Largemouth Bass appeared. The diet of Sacramento Perch generally consists of Daphnia, mosquito larvae, and chironomids, none of which are usually limiting, so diet is unlikely to be a limiting factor in their survival. Additionally, species with similar diets coexist with Sacramento Perch in Jameson Pond. The simultaneous disappearance of Sacramento Perch, Three-spined Stickleback, and Prickly Sculpin makes it unlikely that predation was the only cause of their extinction. If Sacramento Perch were present when Largemouth Bass were introduced, Curved Pond would be well primed for an ecological meltdown driven by low water quality conditions, extreme heat, and competition from a new species. The clearer water, lack of surface vegetation, and lack of other centrarchid species in Jameson Pond also help make the case for environmental conditions eliminating the Sacramento Perch. Jameson Pond receives regular cold-water flow from underground pipes, and the only other species there do not exert high levels of competitive pressure. The rapid disappearance of the Curved and Beaver Pond population reaffirms the necessity of backing up all genetically distinct populations of Sacramento Perch. Additionally, regular monitoring of waters containing Sacramento Perch are critical to better understanding the species. While the species has been gaining more attention from scientists and managers, much about the distribution of the species is still unknown. Research and field surveys have shown that the introduction of Bluegill sunfish has a strong correlation with Sacramento Perch declines. During the timeline of this project, an additional Sacramento Perch population was discovered in Diaz Lake in Kern County, 45 miles from the nearest known population at Little Lake, which is believed to have been extirpated following the introduction of bluegill (Steve Parmenter, CDFW, pers. comm.). The distribution of populations in the Central Valley outside their native range (Appendix 4) is indicative of their widespread introduction in the last century, and an indication that there are still unknown populations throughout the state. Controlled studies by Chris Miller at Contra Costa County Vector Control (CCVC) have shown Sacramento Perch consume mosquito larvae at higher rates than Western Mosquitofish; however, field evaluations have proven difficult due to challenges in recapturing perch and the co-existence of Western Mosquitofish in waterways. The use of Sacramento Perch for vector control offers a unique opportunity for not only long-term studies in unique habitats, but also the opportunity to create a dispersed, genetic bank for the species. Regular stocking would be a necessity for certain waters; the disappearance of the Clear Lake, Little Lake, and now Curved Pond population is a bleak indicator for remaining populations. To ensure the future of the species, fish from all extant populations should be captured and used to create a central hatchery. At the time of this writing, there is interest in restoring the Curved and Beaver Pond population. Larvae from the Jewel Lake (Contra Costa County) gene pool would be provided by Chris Miller, raised in tanks to the swim-up stage, and released in Curved and Beaver ponds. Before reintroduction, both ponds need to be drained, deepened and widened via dredging to remove accumulated nutrients. References Bliesner, Kasey Lauren. 2005. Trophic Ecology and Bioenergetics Modeling of Sacramento Perch (Archoplites Interruptus) in Abbotts Lagoon, Point Reyes National Seashore. Master’s thesis. Humboldt State University Crain, Patrick K, and Peter B Moyle. 2011. Biology, History, Status and Conservation of Sacramento Perch, Archoplites interruptus. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science 9(1): 1546-2366 Durand, John R, Fabian Bombardelli, William E Fleenor, Yumiko Henneberry, Jon Herman, Carson Jeffres, Michelle Leinfelder–Miles, Jay R Lund, Robert Lusardi, Amber D Manfree, Josué Medellín-Azuara, Brett Milligan, and Peter B Moyle. 2020. Drought and the Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta, 2012–2016: Environmental Review and Lessons Lavretsky, P., R. S. Schwartz, M. R. Baerwald, and B. May. 2020. Developing Major Histocompatibility Markers in a Species of Concern: The Sacramento Perch Archoplites interruptus. Journal of Fish Biology 85.5: 1766-776. Lembi, Carol A. 2009. Identifying and Managing Aquatic Vegetation. Purdue University Extension Publication WS-21-W. León, Abimael, Chris E Miller, and Swee J Teh. 2008. Early Development of the Sacramento Perch. North American Journal of Aquaculture 70.1: 27-37. Moyle, P.B., R. M. Quiñones, J. V. Katz and J. Weaver. 2015. Fish Species of Special Concern in California. Sacramento: California Department of Fish and Wildlife. www.wildlife.ca.gov Moyle, P.B. 1979. Curved Pond Unpublished Field Notes. Schneider, James C., P. W. Laarman, and H. Gowing. 2000. Length-weight relationships. Chapter 17 in Schneider, James C. (ed.) 2000. Manual of fisheries survey methods II: with periodic updates. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Special Report 25, Ann Arbor Schwartz, Rachel S, and Bernie May. 2008. Genetic Evaluation of Isolated Populations for Use in Reintroductions Reveals Significant Genetic Bottlenecks in Potential Stocks of Sacramento Perch. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 137.6: 1764-1777.

Appendix 1

Jameson Pond Sampling Results Date Species TL SL Pond Method Fin Recapture Trap # (cm) (cm) Clipped (Y/N) 1/12/21 SP 16 13 Jameson Clover Dorsal N Trap 2 Trap 1/12/21 SP 14 11.5 Jameson Clover Dorsal N Trap 2 Trap 1/12/21 SP 16 13 Jameson Clover Dorsal N Trap 2 Trap 1/12/21 SP 10.5 9 Jameson Clover Dorsal N Trap 2 Trap 10/2/20 SP 16 12.5 Jameson Clover Dorsal N Trap 2 Trap 10/2/20 SP 17 14 Jameson Clover Dorsal N Trap 2 Trap 10/2/20 SP 19 15.5 Jameson Clover Dorsal N Trap 2 Trap 10/2/20 SP 17 14 Jameson Clover Dorsal N Trap 2 Trap 10/2/20 SP 16 13 Jameson Clover Dorsal N Trap 2 Trap 10/2/20 SP 14 11.5 Jameson Clover Dorsal N Trap 2 Trap 10/2/20 SP 18.9 15.25 Jameson Clover Dorsal N Trap 2 Trap 10/2/20 SP 14 11.5 Jameson Clover Dorsal N Trap 2 Trap 10/2/20 SP 13 14 Jameson Clover Dorsal N Trap 2 Trap 10/2/20 BF 17.5 14 Jameson Clover Dorsal N Trap 2 Trap 10/2/20 BF 12.5 9.75 Jameson Clover Dorsal N Trap 3 Trap 10/1/20 SP 21.3 17 Jameson Clover Dorsal N Trap 4 Trap 9/30/20 BF 15 12 Jameson Clover Dorsal N Trap 2 Trap 9/30/20 BF 14.5 11.5 Jameson Clover Dorsal N Trap 2 Trap 9/30/20 BF 11.75 9 Jameson Clover Dorsal N Trap 2 Trap 9/30/20 BF 13 10.5 Jameson Clover Dorsal N Trap 2 Trap 9/30/20 BF 16 12.5 Jameson Clover Dorsal N Trap 2 Trap 9/30/20 BF 13.5 10.75 Jameson Clover Dorsal N Trap 2 Trap 9/30/20 BF 19.5 15.5 Jameson Clover Dorsal N Trap 2 Trap 9/30/20 BF 14.5 11.5 Jameson Clover Dorsal N Trap 2 Trap 9/30/20 BF 16 12.5 Jameson Clover Dorsal N Trap 2 Trap 9/30/20 BF 12 9.5 Jameson Clover Dorsal N Trap 2 Trap 9/30/20 BF 12.25 9.5 Jameson Clover Dorsal N Trap 2 Trap 9/30/20 BF 13.5 10.5 Jameson Clover Dorsal N Trap 2 Trap 9/30/20 BF 13.5 10.5 Jameson Clover Dorsal N Trap 2 Trap 9/30/20 BF 12.75 9.75 Jameson Clover Dorsal N Trap 2 Trap 9/29/20 SP 17.5 14 Jameson Clover Dorsal N Trap 2 Trap 9/29/20 SP 20.6 Jameson Clover Dorsal N Trap 2 Trap 9/29/20 SP 15 11.7 Jameson Clover Dorsal N Trap 2 Trap 9/29/20 SP 14.6 13 Jameson Clover Dorsal N Trap 2 Trap 9/29/20 SP 21.5 18.7 Jameson Clover Dorsal N Trap 2 Trap 9/29/20 SP 15.7 12.7 Jameson Clover Dorsal N Trap 2 Trap 9/29/20 SP 21 17.7 Jameson Clover Dorsal N Trap 2 Trap 9/29/20 SP 15.2 13 Jameson Clover Dorsal N Trap 2 Trap 9/29/20 SP 15.5 13 Jameson Clover Dorsal N Trap 2 Trap 9/29/20 SP 16.4 13.8 Jameson Clover Dorsal N Trap 2 Trap 9/29/20 SP 12.8 10.3 Jameson Clover Dorsal N Trap 2 Trap 9/29/20 BF 12.5 9.75 Jameson Clover Dorsal N Trap 3 Trap 9/29/20 WMF 6 5 Jameson Minnow N/A N/A N/A Trap 9/29/20 WMF 6 5.25 Jameson Minnow N/A N/A N/A Trap 9/29/20 WMF 6.5 5.5 Jameson Minnow N/A N/A N/A Trap 9/29/20 WMF 6.75 5.75 Jameson Minnow N/A N/A N/A Trap 9/29/20 WMF 6.25 5.5 Jameson Minnow N/A N/A N/A Trap 9/29/20 WMF 6 5.5 Jameson Minnow N/A N/A N/A Trap 9/29/20 WMF 6.5 5.5 Jameson Minnow N/A N/A N/A Trap 9/29/20 WMF 6.25 5.25 Jameson Minnow N/A N/A N/A Trap 9/29/20 WMF 6.5 5.25 Jameson Minnow N/A N/A N/A Trap 9/29/20 WMF 6 5 Jameson Minnow N/A N/A N/A Trap 9/29/20 WMF 6 5 Jameson Minnow N/A N/A N/A Trap 9/29/20 WMF 6.25 5.25 Jameson Minnow N/A N/A N/A Trap 9/29/20 WMF 5.5 4.75 Jameson Minnow N/A N/A N/A Trap 9/29/20 WMF 7 5.75 Jameson Minnow N/A N/A N/A Trap 9/29/20 WMF 5.75 4.75 Jameson Minnow N/A N/A N/A Trap 9/29/20 WMF 6.9 5.75 Jameson Minnow N/A N/A N/A Trap 9/29/20 WMF 6.5 5.3 Jameson Minnow N/A N/A N/A Trap 9/29/20 WMF 5.7 4.75 Jameson Minnow N/A N/A N/A Trap 9/29/20 WMF 5.75 4.8 Jameson Minnow N/A N/A N/A Trap 9/29/20 WMF 5.75 4.8 Jameson Minnow N/A N/A N/A Trap 9/29/20 WMF 6 5 Jameson Minnow N/A N/A N/A Trap 9/29/20 WMF 5.9 4.9 Jameson Minnow N/A N/A N/A Trap 9/29/20 WMF 5.75 4.75 Jameson Minnow N/A N/A N/A Trap 9/29/20 WMF 5.75 4.75 Jameson Minnow N/A N/A N/A Trap 9/29/20 WMF 6.5 5.5 Jameson Minnow N/A N/A N/A Trap 9/29/20 WMF 6.5 5.4 Jameson Minnow N/A N/A N/A Trap 9/29/20 WMF 7 5.8 Jameson Minnow N/A N/A N/A Trap 9/29/20 WMF 5.5 4.75 Jameson Minnow N/A N/A N/A Trap 9/29/20 WMF 6.25 5.4 Jameson Minnow N/A N/A N/A Trap 9/29/20 WMF 6.25 5.25 Jameson Minnow N/A N/A N/A Trap -- WMF 5.75 4.8 Jameson Minnow N/A N/A N/A Trap -- WMF 5.9 4.9 Jameson Minnow N/A N/A N/A Trap -- WMF 6 4.75 Jameson Minnow N/A N/A N/A Trap -- WMF 5.3 4.5 Jameson Minnow N/A N/A N/A Trap -- WMF 6 5 Jameson Minnow N/A N/A N/A Trap -- WMF 6 5 Jameson Minnow N/A N/A N/A Trap -- WMF 5.9 5 Jameson Minnow N/A N/A N/A Trap -- WMF 6 5 Jameson Minnow N/A N/A N/A Trap -- WMF N/A N/A Jameson Minnow N/A N/A N/A Trap -- WMF N/A N/A Jameson Minnow N/A N/A N/A Trap -- WMF N/A N/A Jameson Minnow N/A N/A N/A Trap -- WMF N/A N/A Jameson Minnow N/A N/A N/A Trap -- WMF N/A N/A Jameson Minnow N/A N/A N/A Trap

Curved & Beaver ponds

Date Species TL (cm) SL Pond Method (cm) 9/9/2020 LMB -- -- Curved Clover Trap 9/9/2020 LMB 9.9 -- Curved Clover Trap 9/10/2020 Craw 11 -- Curved Clover Trap 9/10/2020 LMB 14 11 Curved Clover Trap 9/10/2020 LMB 18.5 14.5 Curved Clover Trap 9/10/2020 LMB 15 12 Curved Clover Trap 9/10/2020 LMB 14.5 11.5 Curved Clover Trap 9/11/2020 LMB 16 12 Curved Clover Trap 9/14/2020 LMB 26.7 -- Beaver H&L 9/14/2020 LMB 34.3 -- Beaver H&L 9/14/2020 LMB 31.75 -- Beaver H&L 9/14/2020 LMB 34.3 -- Beaver H&L 9/14/2020 LMB 26.7 -- Beaver H&L 9/14/2020 LMB 33 -- Curved H&L 10/2/2020 LMB 10.6 8.8 Curved Clover Trap 9/29/2020 LMB 11 9.5 Curved Clover Trap N/A LMB 10.2 8.4 Curved Clover Trap N/A LMB 10.4 8.7 Curved Clover Trap N/A LMB 10.4 8.7 Curved Clover Trap N/A LMB 9.8 7.8 Curved Clover Trap N/A LMB 9 7.5 Curved Clover Trap

Appendix 2 Curved Pond stocking report from October 23, 1979 (Peter B. Moyle, UC Davis) Appendix 3 2003 Curved Pond Sampling (Peter B. Moyle, UC Davis)

Appendix 4 Waters and Watersheds containing Sacramento Perch in Inyo and Kern counties (Nick Buckmaster, CDFW)

CANAL FED POND SPRING-FED, NATURAL LAKE GEOTHERMALLY HEATED, EUTROPHIC TRIBUTARY TO CROWLEY LAKE PLEASANT VALLEY RESERVOIR TAILWATER TEMPORARY SPREADING PONDS, OWENS VALLEY FLOOR SPRING-FED, NATURAL LAKE WATER STORAGE RESERVOIR ON RUSH CREEK WATER STORAGE RESERVOIR ON RUSH CREEK WATER STORAGE RESERVOIR ON RUSH CREEK WATER STORAGE RESERVOIR ON OWENS RIVER WATER CONVEYANCE FOR IRRIGATION WATER STORAGE RESERVOIR ON EAST WALKER RIVER REGULATING RESERVOIR FOR OWENS RIVER SPRING-FED, NATURAL LAKE HABITAT NOTES HABITAT LMB,BG,BB,WB,GAM,RSF,CP BG,CCF,CP BN,RT,TC,SKR,SP BT,RT,LCT,SP,LMB,SKR,SD TC,SKR,LMB,BGSF,SP SP,CCF BN,RT,LCT,TC,SKR,SP BN,RT,LCT,TC,SKR,SP BN,RT,LCT,TC,SKR,SP BN,RT,LCT,TC,SKR,SP BN,RT,LMB,TC,SKR,SP RT,BN,SP,TC,SKR,LRS,CP BN,RT,LMB,TC,SKR,SP SP,CCF,GAM,LMB? SPECIES OWENS OWENS OWENS OWENS OWENS OWENS MONO MONO MONO OWENS OWENS E WLKR OWENS OWENS WATERSHED INYO INYO MONO INYO INYO MONO MONO MONO MONO MONO INYO MONO INYO INYO COUNTY SANDER'S POND DIAZ LAKE LOWER HOT CREEK OWENS RIVER -WILD TROUT SECTION isolated reports OWENS SPREADING PONDS BRAMLET RANCH PONDS GRANT RESERVOIR SILVER LAKE GULL LAKE CROWLEY RESERVOIR BISHOP CANAL BRIDGEPORT RESERVOIR PLEASANT VALLEY RES. LITTLE LAKE NAME Appendix 5 2015 Curved, Beaver, and Jameson Pond Sampling Records (Mollie Ogaz, Peter B. Moyle, UC Davis)