DOCSLIB.ORG

California's Freshwater Fishes: Status and Management

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
California's Freshwater Fishes: Status and Management California’s freshwater fishes: status and management Rebecca M. Quiñones* and Peter B. Moyle Center for Watershed Sciences, University of California at Davis, One Shields Ave, Davis, 95616, USA * correspondence to [email protected] SUMMARY Fishes in Mediterranean climates are adapted to thrive in streams with dy- namic environmental conditions such as strong seasonality in flows. Howev- er, anthropogenic threats to species viability, in combination with climate change, can alter habitats beyond native species’ environmental tolerances and may result in extirpation. Although the effects of a Mediterranean cli- mate on aquatic habitats in California have resulted in a diverse fish fauna, freshwater fishes are significantly threatened by alien species invasions, the presence of dams, and water withdrawals associated with agricultural and urban use. A long history of habitat degradation and dependence of salmonid taxa on hatchery supplementation are also contributing to the decline of fish- es in the state. These threats are exacerbated by climate change, which is also reducing suitable habitats through increases in temperatures and chang- es to flow regimes. Approximately 80% of freshwater fishes are now facing extinction in the next 100 years, unless current trends are reversed by active conservation. Here, we review threats to California freshwater fishes and update a five-tiered approach to preserve aquatic biodiversity in California, with emphasis on fish species diversity. Central to the approach are man- agement actions that address conservation at different scales, from single taxon and species assemblages to Aquatic Diversity Management Areas, wa- tersheds, and bioregions. Keywords: alien fishes, climate change, conservation strategy, dams Citation: Quiñones RM, Moyle PB (2015) California’s freshwater fishes: status and man- agement. FISHMED Fishes in Mediterranean Environments 2015.001: 20p 1 Status and management of California’s freshwater fishes 2015.001: 20p ECOSYSTEM AND FISH FAUNAL Coast) and highest aquatic habitat diversi- CHARACTERIZATION ty. Fishes are also found in extreme habi- tats such as intermittent streams (e.g., Cali- Mediterranean climates are charac- fornia roach, Lavinia spp.), desert springs terized by seasonal cycles of cool, wet win- (e.g., pupfishes Cyprinodon spp.) and alka- ters and warm, dry summers with most line lakes (e.g., Eagle Lake trout Oncorhyn- rainfall falling in winter (Gasith and Resh chus mykiss aquilarum). Most native fishes 1999). This seasonality in rainfall results in in California spawn in spring, March flow regimes with high flows in winter and through May (Moyle 2002), synchronizing spring, and low flows in summer and fall. their life histories to flow regimes in their Although the annual occurrence of high and natal streams (Kiernan and Moyle 2012) in low flow events is predictable, their intensi- order to exploit favorable stream conditions ty and frequency can vary greatly between for spawning and early life history stages. years and locations (Gasith and Resh 1999, Other characteristics that facilitate life in Grantham et al. 2010). Streams with high- highly variable conditions include high fe- elevation headwaters have attenuating cundity, good dispersal mechanisms, and spring-summer flows, reflecting a snow-melt behavioral and physiological mechanisms to flow regime (Yarnell et al. 2010). Streams survive or avoid extreme conditions (Moyle with rainfall-driven flows respond rapidly to 2002; Table 1). winter storms, and high flows can be ex- Most (but not all) established alien tremely flashy. Regardless of whether flows species in California have a number of traits are driven by snow-melt or rain, late sum- in common; they have a mutualistic rela- mers are likely to be most stressful for fish, tionship with people, are tolerant of a broad because sections of streams can dry for ex- suite of environmental conditions, have eco- tended periods during some years (Gasith logical requirements similar to the envi- and Resh 1999). In Californian summers, ronments into which they are introduced, streams may experience high water temper- and have large native ranges (Marchetti et atures, high alkalinity, and low dissolved al. 2004a, Moyle and Marchetti 2006). Prior oxygen concentrations (Moyle 2002). These invasion success also increases the chance of conditions, as well as changes in stream successful establishment, as does large flow, influence the abundance and distribu- propagule size. However, the ability of a tion of fishes, by determining the physical species to spread or integrate into the exist- and biological characteristics of streams ing fauna is dependent on a combination of (Poff and Ward 1989). Fishes living in Cali- other characteristics that promote survival fornia’s Mediterranean-climate streams are through different life history stages, which therefore adapted to varying, and often ex- differ among species. Longevity, regional treme, environmental conditions (Moyle et origin, and trophic status (other than her- al. 2011). bivory) appear to facilitate spread while There are 129 native and 43 alien size, regional origin, and trophic status (non-native) freshwater fish species or simi- (other than invertivory) aid integration suc- lar taxa (i.e. Evolutionarily Significant cess (Moyle and Marchetti 2006). At the Units, Distinct Population Segments) recog- landscape level, distribution patterns of al- nized in California (Moyle et al. 2011, Ap- ien species are most enhanced by the mag- pendix A); of the native fishes, 63% are en- nitude of human alterations to aquatic habi- demic and another 19% are shared with tats. Urbanization, water diversion, and adjacent states, so 82% of California fishes agriculture, in particular, enable successful are regionally endemic (Moyle et al. 2011). alien species invasion (Marchetti et al. Most taxa are found in areas with high wa- 2004b, c). ter availability (Central Valley and North 2 Status and management of California’s freshwater fishes 2015.001: 20p TABLE 1. General characteristics of most native fishes and native fish assemblag- es in California (modified from Moyle 2002). Many exceptions exist to each charac- teristic Have life history strategies that favor large size and high 1 fecundity 2 Are morphologically distinct between regions Comprise a fish fauna with low local species richness (1-7 3 species) Anadromous species are important components of fish as- 4 semblages in streams connected to the ocean 5 Spawn from March to May 6 Provide little parental care Inhabit different ecological niches during different life stag- 7 es Have mechanisms (behavioral, physiological) to survive or 8 avoid extreme conditions 9 Are good dispersers 10 Are depleted by alien species in highly altered systems CURRENT KNOWLEDGE AND STATUS score was given to taxa with little or no da- ta, indicating that the score was largely based on expert opinion. A high score was California’s freshwater fish fauna as given to taxa for which multiple sources of a whole has been studied extensively (Moyle information were available, including peer- 2002). However, there is a paucity of infor- reviewed literature. The same approach mation for some taxa. Moyle et al. (2011, was used to score the certainty of each tax- 2013) quantified available information for on’s climate change vulnerability in Moyle each taxon during their status assessments. et al. (2013). Based on these evaluations, Moyle et al. (2011), determined status by there is at least moderate knowledge for scoring seven metrics to evaluate the suite about 93% of the taxa in California. The 7% of threats faced by each taxon. Quality of (9 species) of the taxa that we know little knowledge used to determine individual about are largely represented by lamprey metrics for each taxon was scored through and cyprinid species (Table 2). certainty indices. A low certainty index 3 Status and management of California’s freshwater fishes 2015.001: 20p PLATE 1. Californian fish habitats and fish species. 1) Klamath River; 2) Walker River Valley; 3) Saratoga Springs; 4) Putah Creek; 5) Chinook salmon; 6) Tule perch; 7) Saratoga Springs pupfish; 8) Pacific lamprey; 9) Common carp. Pho- tographs: J. Katz and R. Quiñones 4 Status and management of California’s freshwater fishes 2015.001: 20p TABLE 2. Native fish taxa of which we have least knowledge in California (low certainty scores; see Moyle et al. 2013 for details). Basic information on habitat re- quirements, distribution or abundance of these species in California is not current- ly available. 1 Klamath River lamprey, Entosphenus similis 2 River lamprey, Lampetra ayersi 3 Western brook lamprey, Lampetra richardsoni 4 Pit-Klamath brook lamprey, Lampetra lethophaga 5 Pit River tui chub, Siphatales thalassinus subsp. 6 Sacramento hitch, Lavinia exilicauda exilicauda 7 Northern Roach, Lavinia mitrulus 8 Klamath largescale sucker, Catostomus snyderi 9 Chum salmon, Oncorhynchus keta These studies (Moyle et al. 2011, fishes in the next 100 years (Moyle et al. 2013) showed that the status of native fish- 2011, 2013; Katz et al. 2012). Seven taxa es in California has been declining at least are already extinct (see Appendix A). Since since the onset of large-scale damming and the first status assessment in 1975, taxa diversions in the mid-19th century. Status threatened with extinction (vulnerable or assessments of the entire fish fauna were endangered) increased from 41% in 1975 to completed in 1975 (Moyle 1976), 1989 57% in 1989, to 62% in 1995, and to 77% in (Moyle and Williams 1990), 1995 (Moyle et 2010 (Figure 1). In 1995, 16 taxa were des- al. 1995), and 2010 (Moyle et al. 2011). Alt- ignated as most in peril of extinction in the hough status labels differed between re- near future (Figure 1). Of these, 9 (53%) ports, individual taxon were determined to were salmonids, and 7 were cyprinids (44%). be, in order of decreasing concern, ex- In 2010, the most imperiled groups were tinct/extirpated, endangered (i.e. listed or represented by twice as many taxa (33, Fig- eligible for listing under state and federal ure 1) in eight families (Moyle et al. 2011; endangered species acts), vulnerable, or ap- Table 3).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • CATALINA CALIFORNIA QUAIL (Callipepla Californica Catalinensis) Paul W
    II SPECIES ACCOUNTS Andy Birch PDF of Catalina California Quail account from: Shuford, W. D., and Gardali, T., editors. 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. California Bird Species of Special Concern CATALINA CALIFORNIA QUAIL (Callipepla californica catalinensis) Paul W. Collins Criteria Scores Population Trend 0 Santa Range Trend 0 Barbara County Population Size 7.5 Range Size 10 Ventura Endemism 10 County Population Concentration 10 Threats 0 Los San Miguel Is. Santa Cruz Is. Angeles County Anacapa Is. Santa Rosa Is. Santa Barbara Is. Santa Catalina Is. San Nicolas Is. San Clemente Is. Current Year-round Range Historic Year-round Range County Boundaries Kilometers 20 10 0 20 Current and historic (ca. 1944) year-round range of the Catalina California Quail. Birds from Santa Catalina Island (perhaps brought by Native Americans) later introduced successfully to Santa Rosa (1935–1940) and Santa Cruz (late 1940s) islands, but unsuccessfully to San Nicolas Island (1962); quail from mainland populations of C. c. californica introduced unsuccessfully to Santa Cruz (prior to 1875) and San Clemente (late 19th century, 1913) islands. Catalina California Quail Studies of Western Birds 1:107–111, 2008 107 Studies of Western Birds No. 1 SPECIAL CONCERN PRIORITY HISTORIC RANGE AND ABUNDANCE Currently considered a Bird Species of Special IN CALIFORNIA Concern (year round), priority 3. This subspecies Grinnell and Miller (1944) described the Catalina was not included on prior special concern lists California Quail as a “common to abundant” (Remsen 1978, CDFG 1992).
    [Show full text]
  • Solar Energy, National Parks, and Landscape Protection in the Desert
    Solar Energy, National Parks, and Landscape Protection in the Desert Southwest - 1 - Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ - 3 - Part I. Solar energy tsunami headed for the American Southwest ......................................... - 6 - Solar Energy: From the fringes and into the light .................................................................. - 6 - The Southwest: Regional Geography and Environmental Features ..................................... - 12 - Regional Stakeholders and Shared Resources ...................................................................... - 23 - Part II. Case Studies of Approved Solar Energy Facilities .................................................... - 27 - Amargosa Farm Road Solar Energy Plant Near Death Valley National Park: Preserving Water Resources to Protect Critically Endangered Species............................................................. - 27 - Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System Near Mojave National Preserve: Protecting Endangered Desert Tortoises and Scenic Resources ............................................................ - 42 - Desert Sunlight Solar Farm Project Near Joshua Tree NP: Protecting Park Scenery from Adjacent Development .......................................................................................................... - 56 - Part III. The Department of Interior’s Programmatic Solar Energy Environmental Impact Statement .............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Section 5 References
    Section 5 References 5.0 REFERENCES Akçakaya, H. R. and J. L. Atwood. 1997. A habitat-based metapopulation model of the California Gnatcatcher. Conservation Biology 11:422-434. Akçakaya, H.R. 1998. RAMAS GIS: Linking landscape data with population viability analysis (version 3.0). Applied Biomathematics, Setaauket, New York. Anderson, D.W. and J.W. Hickey. 1970. Eggshell changes in certain North American birds. Ed. K. H. Voous. Proc. (XVth) Inter. Ornith. Congress, pp 514-540. E.J. Brill, Leiden, Netherlands. Anderson, D.W., J.R. Jehl, Jr., R.W. Risebrough, L.A. Woods, Jr., L.R. Deweese, and W.G. Edgecomb. 1975. Brown pelicans: improved reproduction of the southern California coast. Science 190:806-808. Atwood, J.L. 1980. The United States distribution of the California black-tailed gnatcatcher. Western Birds 11: 65-78. Atwood, J.L. 1990. Status review of the California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica). Unpublished Technical Report, Manomet Bird Observatory, Manomet, Massachusetts. Atwood, J.L. 1992. A maximum estimate of the California gnatcatcher’s population size in the United States. Western Birds. 23:1-9. Atwood, J.L. and J.S. Bolsinger. 1992. Elevational distribution of California gnatcatchers in the United States. Journal of Field Ornithology 63:159-168. Atwood, J.L., S.H. Tsai, C.H. Reynolds, M.R. Fugagli. 1998. Factors affecting estimates of California gnatcatcher territory size. Western Birds 29: 269-279. Baharav, D. 1975. Movement of the horned lizard Phrynosoma solare. Copeia 1975: 649-657. Barry, W.J. 1988. Management of sensitive plants in California state parks. Fremontia 16(2):16-20. Beauchamp, R.M.
    [Show full text]
  • Birds on San Clemente Island, As Part of Our Work Toward the Recovery of the Island’S Endangered Species
    WESTERN BIRDS Volume 36, Number 3, 2005 THE BIRDS OF SAN CLEMENTE ISLAND BRIAN L. SULLIVAN, PRBO Conservation Science, 4990 Shoreline Hwy., Stinson Beach, California 94970-9701 (current address: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, 159 Sapsucker Woods Rd., Ithaca, New York 14850) ERIC L. KERSHNER, Institute for Wildlife Studies, 2515 Camino del Rio South, Suite 334, San Diego, California 92108 With contributing authors JONATHAN J. DUNN, ROBB S. A. KALER, SUELLEN LYNN, NICOLE M. MUNKWITZ, and JONATHAN H. PLISSNER ABSTRACT: From 1992 to 2004, we observed birds on San Clemente Island, as part of our work toward the recovery of the island’s endangered species. We increased the island’s bird list to 317 species, by recording many additional vagrants and seabirds. The list includes 20 regular extant breeding species, 6 species extirpated as breeders, 5 nonnative introduced species, and 9 sporadic or newly colonizing breeding species. For decades San Clemente Island had been ravaged by overgrazing, especially by goats, which were removed completely in 1993. Since then, the island’s vegetation has begun recovering, and the island’s avifauna will likely change again as a result. We document here the status of that avifauna during this transitional period of re- growth, between the island’s being largely denuded of vegetation and a more natural state. It is still too early to evaluate the effects of the vegetation’s still partial recovery on birds, but the beginnings of recovery may have enabled the recent colonization of small numbers of Grasshopper Sparrows and Lazuli Buntings. Sponsored by the U. S. Navy, efforts to restore the island’s endangered species continue—among birds these are the Loggerhead Shrike and Sage Sparrow.
    [Show full text]
  • General Biology of Major Prey Species of the California Spotted Owl
    Chapter 10 General Biology of Major Prey Species of the California Spotted Owl Daniel F. Williams, Jared Verner, Howard F. Sakai, and Jeffrey R. Waters Full understanding of the habitat relations of California geographic range (see color photo 5-29). They are most numer- spotted owls depends, in part, on knowledge of the habitat ous where shrub cover is dense, and least abundant in open areas relations of their primary prey species. For example, the north- (Fitch 1947). They are one of few small mammal species of ern flying squirrel is the primary prey of the owl in conifer chaparral habitats that flourish in old, dense stands (Quinn 1990). forests of the Sierra Nevada, comprising as much as 61 to 77 Habitats that are unsuited or poorly suited for dusky-footed percent of the total biomass eaten in some localities and seasons woodrats include open grasslands or fallow, weedy ground; (table 4A). The dusky-footed woodrat is the primary prey in sparsely wooded forests; woodlands solely of conifers or with lower-elevation forests and woodlands of the Sierra Nevada and little shrub understory; and pure stands of chamise, manzanita, throughout all habitats in southern California, making up 74-94 or ceanothus (Linsdale and Tevis 1951). percent of the diet, by weight, in various areas. Current evidence In the Sierra Nevada, this woodrat occurs generally below indicates that suitable nest sites and the most common foods of 5,000 feet in elevation (lower in the north-about 3,300 feet at northern flying squirrels are usually found together in mature Mt.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to the Coastal Marine Fishes of California
    STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE RESOURCES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME FISH BULLETIN 157 GUIDE TO THE COASTAL MARINE FISHES OF CALIFORNIA by DANIEL J. MILLER and ROBERT N. LEA Marine Resources Region 1972 ABSTRACT This is a comprehensive identification guide encompassing all shallow marine fishes within California waters. Geographic range limits, maximum size, depth range, a brief color description, and some meristic counts including, if available: fin ray counts, lateral line pores, lateral line scales, gill rakers, and vertebrae are given. Body proportions and shapes are used in the keys and a state- ment concerning the rarity or commonness in California is given for each species. In all, 554 species are described. Three of these have not been re- corded or confirmed as occurring in California waters but are included since they are apt to appear. The remainder have been recorded as occurring in an area between the Mexican and Oregon borders and offshore to at least 50 miles. Five of California species as yet have not been named or described, and ichthyologists studying these new forms have given information on identification to enable inclusion here. A dichotomous key to 144 families includes an outline figure of a repre- sentative for all but two families. Keys are presented for all larger families, and diagnostic features are pointed out on most of the figures. Illustrations are presented for all but eight species. Of the 554 species, 439 are found primarily in depths less than 400 ft., 48 are meso- or bathypelagic species, and 67 are deepwater bottom dwelling forms rarely taken in less than 400 ft.
    [Show full text]
  • Desert Aquatic Ecosystems and the Genetic and Morphological Diversity of Death Valley System Speckled Dace
    American Fisheries Society Symposium 17:350-359, 1995 © Copyright by the American Fisheries Society 1995 Desert Aquatic Ecosystems and the Genetic and Morphological Diversity of Death Valley System Speckled Dace DONALD W. SADA Environmental Studies Program, University of Nevada-Las Vegas 2689 Highland Drive, Bishop, California 93514, USA HUGH B. BRITTEN AND PETER F. BRUSSARD Biodiversity Research Center, Department of Biology, University of Nevada Reno, Nevada 89557-0015, USA Abstract.—The morphological and genetic diversities of fishes in North American deserts have been examined to estimate evolutionary rates, to create models of interbasin pluvial connectivity, and to justify protection of aquatic ecosystems throughout the region. Morphological and genetic studies comparing 13 populations of speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus from the Death Valley system, Lahontan basin, and lower Colorado River were conducted to quantify differences among populations. Differences in meristic and mensural characteristics among populations were highly significant, but differences in body shape were slight and best explained as representing two forms, one deep-bodied and short, the other elongate and slender. Starch gel electrophoretic assays of 23 loci showed isolated populations to be genetically unique. Fifty-nine taxa are identified as endemic to wetland and aquatic habitats in the Death Valley system: 16 forms of fish, 1 amphibian, 22 mollusks, 7 aquatic insects, 3 mammals, and 10 forms of flowering plants. Genetic and morphological differentiation of isolated speckled dace populations and the diversity and number of endemic forms associated with wetlands and aquatic habitats in the Death Valley system suggest that each desert wetland community functions as an evolutionarily significant unit.
    [Show full text]
  • Microsoft Outlook
    Joey Steil From: Leslie Jordan <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 1:13 PM To: Angela Ruberto Subject: Potential Environmental Beneficial Users of Surface Water in Your GSA Attachments: Paso Basin - County of San Luis Obispo Groundwater Sustainabilit_detail.xls; Field_Descriptions.xlsx; Freshwater_Species_Data_Sources.xls; FW_Paper_PLOSONE.pdf; FW_Paper_PLOSONE_S1.pdf; FW_Paper_PLOSONE_S2.pdf; FW_Paper_PLOSONE_S3.pdf; FW_Paper_PLOSONE_S4.pdf CALIFORNIA WATER | GROUNDWATER To: GSAs We write to provide a starting point for addressing environmental beneficial users of surface water, as required under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). SGMA seeks to achieve sustainability, which is defined as the absence of several undesirable results, including “depletions of interconnected surface water that have significant and unreasonable adverse impacts on beneficial users of surface water” (Water Code §10721). The Nature Conservancy (TNC) is a science-based, nonprofit organization with a mission to conserve the lands and waters on which all life depends. Like humans, plants and animals often rely on groundwater for survival, which is why TNC helped develop, and is now helping to implement, SGMA. Earlier this year, we launched the Groundwater Resource Hub, which is an online resource intended to help make it easier and cheaper to address environmental requirements under SGMA. As a first step in addressing when depletions might have an adverse impact, The Nature Conservancy recommends identifying the beneficial users of surface water, which include environmental users. This is a critical step, as it is impossible to define “significant and unreasonable adverse impacts” without knowing what is being impacted. To make this easy, we are providing this letter and the accompanying documents as the best available science on the freshwater species within the boundary of your groundwater sustainability agency (GSA).
    [Show full text]
  • Mammals of Yosemite National Park (1952) by Harry C
    Mammals of Yosemite National Park (1952) by Harry C. Parker • Title page • Table of Contents • Foreword • How to Tell a Bear From a Beaver • Yosemite Mammals • Insect-eaters — Moles and Shrews [— Insectivores] • Bats [— Chiropters] • Rabbits and Their Allies — The Langomorphs • Rodents or Gnawing Mammals — Rodentia • Flesh-eaters — Carnivores • Even-toed, Hoofed Mammals — Artiedactyls • How to Enjoy Mammals of the Park • Checklist of the Mammals of Yosemite National Park • Selected References About the Author Harry Parker leading a bird walk, 1946 Harry C. Parker was born 1906 and earned an AB in Zoology from Kansas University and a Master’s degree in Geography from Clark University. He was director of a natural history center in Massachusetts when he enrolled in the 1936 class of the Yosemite Field School of Natural History. He joined the National Park Service in 1940 at Olympic National Park. After a few months, he transferred to Yosemite as Junior Park Naturalist. He married Katherine “Kit” D. Johnson at the base of El Capitan October 1942. Next month, he left for World War II in the Aleutians where he served as 1st lieutenant in the Quartermaster Corps. After the war, in 1946, he rejoined as Associate Park Naturalist in Yosemite, where he wrote Mammals of Yosemite in 1952. Parker transferred to Crater Lake National Park in 1952, where he was Park Naturalist and Chief Park Naturalist. At Crater Lake he was editor of the Crater Lake Nature Notes. In 1955 he transferred to Grand Teton National Park as Chief Park Naturalist. In 1956 he transferred to Washington, D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • California Fish and Wildlife Journal, Volume 106, Issue 3
    California Fish and Wildlife 106 • SUMMER 2020 • NUM VOLUME BER 3 Journal for the Conservation and Management of California’s Species and Ecosystems Published Quarterly by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor CALIFORNIA NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY Wade Crowfoot, Secretary for Natural Resources FISH AND GAME COMMISSION Eric Sklar, President Jacque Hostler-Carmesin, Vice President Russell Burns, Member Peter S. Silva, Member Samantha Murray, Member Melissa Miller-Henson, Executive Director DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Charlton “Chuck” Bonham, Director CALIFORNIA FISH AND WILDLIFE EDITORIAL STAFF Ange Darnell Baker ...........................................................................Editor-in-Chief Lorna Bernard ...........................Office of Communication, Education and Outreach Neil Clipperton, Scott Osborn, Laura Patterson, Dan Skalos, Katherine Miller Karen Converse, and Kristin Denryter ............................................ Wildlife Branch Felipe La Luz and Ken Kundargi ........................................................ Water Branch Jeff Rodzen and Jeff Weaver ........................................................... Fisheries Branch Cherilyn Burton ........................................... Habitat Conservation Planning Branch Kevin Fleming ...............................................Watershed Restoration Grants Branch Jeff Villepique, Steve Parmenter ............................................ Inland Deserts Region Paul Reilly and James Ray ................................................................Marine
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedingscalif09cali
    ' BINDING LIST DEC 1 5 )9l1 Digitized by tine Internet Arciiive in 2009 with funding from Ontario Council of University Libraries http://www.archive.org/details/proceedingscalif09cali PROCEEDINGS California Academy of Sciences FOURTH SERIES Vol. IX 1919 o^n y ,% " PRINTED FROM THE ^• r JOHN W. HENDRIE PUBLICATION ENDOWMENT SAN FRANCISCO Published by the Academy 1919 r m COMMITTEE ON PUBLICATION George C. Edwards, Chairman C. E. Grunsky Barton Warren Evermann, Editor if CONTENTS OF VOLUME IX Plates 1-20 page Title-page ] Contents '" Notes on West American Chitons— II 1 By S. Stillman Berry (Published June 16, 1919) Life-Zone Indicators in California 37 By Harvey Monroe Hall and Joseph Grinnell (Published June 16, 1919) Notes on Mammals collected principally in Washington and California between the Years 1853 and 1874 by Dr. James Graham Cooper. ... 69 By Walter P. Taylor (Published July 12, 1919) Climatic Relations of the Tertiary and Quaternary Faunas of the California Region 123 By James Perrin Smith (Published July 12, 1919) Contribution to the Optics of the Microscope 175 By C. W. Woodworth (Published July 12, 1919) The Gopher-Snakes of Western North America 197 By John Van Denburgh and Joseph R. Slevin (Published August 26, 1919) New Oregon Diptera 221 By F. R. Cole and A. L. Lovett (Published August 26, 1919) Key to the North American Species of the Dipterous Genus Medeterus, with Descriptions of New Species 257 By Millard C. Van Duzee (Published August 26, 1919.1 Description of a New Fossil Fish from Japan 271 By David Starr Jordan (Published October 22, 1919) Notes on the Avifauna of the Inner Coast Range of California 273 By Joseph Mailliard (Published November 25, 1919) New Species of Flies (Diptera) from California 297 By J.
    [Show full text]
  • Basin-Wide Native Non-Game Fish Assessment
    Basin‐wide Native Non‐game Fish Assessment 2011 Annual Report Revised on February 21, 2013 USDA Forest Service, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Written by Christopher Lemmers (Biological Science Technician) and Maura Santora (Aquatic Biologist) Reviewed by Sarah Muskopf (Acting Forest Aquatic Biologist) and Shana Gross (Forest Ecologist) Approved by Holly Eddinger (Biological Program Leader) Original Version: April 19, 2012 Revised Version: February 21, 2013 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 3 Methods ........................................................................................................................................................ 5 Results ........................................................................................................................................................... 7 Discussion ................................................................................................................................................... 11 Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................... 13 Works Cited ................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]