DOCSLIB.ORG

Ner Sucker, Catostomus Warnerensis, Con

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ner Sucker, Catostomus Warnerensis, Con Creat &Isio N:l.luraUst 50(3), 1900, pp. 243-248 CONSERVATION STATUS OF THREATENED FISHES IN WARNER BASIN, OREGON 1 l 3 Jack E. Williams , MarkA. Stern \ Alan V. Munhall , and Cary A. Anderson"" A8S'TRACT.-Two fedemlJy listed fisbes, the Foskett speckled daceand Warnersucker, are endemic to Warner Basin in south central Oregon. The Foskett speckled dace is native only to a single spring in Coleman Valley. Anearby'spring was stocked with dace in 1979 and 1980, and now provides a second population. The present numbers ofdace probably are at their Wgbest levels since settlement ofthe region. 'The Warner sucker historically occurred throughout much of the Warner Valley, but its distribution and abundance have been reduced by construction ofreservoirs and irrigation dams and the introduction of predatory game fishes. Lentic habitats have become dominated by introduced fishes, particularly white crappie, black crappie, and brown bullhead. The largest remaining IXlPulation ofWarner suckers occurs in Hart Lake, where successful reproduction was documented but there is no evidence of recruitment to the adult population. Two threatened fishes inhabit separate val­ Deep (= Warner) Creek near Adel. The leys in Warner Basin, Oregon. In Coleman Warner sucker was listed as threatened pri­ Valley the only native fish is the Foskett marily because of fragmentation of stream speckled dace, Rhiuichthys osculus ssp., habitats by irrigation diversion dams and the which occurs in Foskett Spring along the west establishment of large populations of intro­ margin oftbe Coleman Lake bed. The lake is duced piscivorous fishes in lentic habitats dryexcept during years ofexceptional rainfall. (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1985b). The dace was listed as threatened because of Long-time residents recalled that during small population size, trampling of its re­ the 1930s large numbers ofspawning Warner stricted habitat by cattle, and subsequent suckers (referred to as "redborse") ascended degradation ofthe springpool area (U.S. Fish Honey Creek far into upstream canyon areas and Wildlife Service 1985a). (Andreasen 1975). By the 1970s the species To provide a refuge population free of range was fragmented by numerous irriga­ tion diversion dams on the lower reaches of the effects of intense livestock grazing, 50 streams tributary to Pelican, Crump, and dace from Foskett Spring were transplanted Hart lakes (Andreasen 1975, Kohetich 1977, on 14 November 1979 into an unnamed spring Swensen 1978, Coombs et a1. 1979, Hayes (now known as "Dace Spring") on Bureau of 1980), which block spawning runs from the Land Management (BLM) land approxi­ lakes into streams. mately 1.5 km south of Foskett Spring. An­ Coombs et al. (1979) found that although other 50 dace were transferred into the spring habitats bad been fragmented resident stream on 26 August 1980. A reprodUcing population populations still persisted. Nearly two-thirds subsequently established in Dace Spring, and ofall adult suckers (198 of300) were captured more than 300 dace ofthree size classes were by Coombs et a1. (1979) in the canal between observed there in 1986 (BLM Lakeview Dis­ Anderson and Hart lakes, immediately north trict, unpublished data). of the Hart Lake spillway. Adult and larval The presumed historical range ofthe War­ suckers also were captured in Snyder Creek, ner sucker, Catostomus warnerensis, con­ in Honey Creek above the dam at Plusb, at sisted of the main Warner lakes (Pelican, the mouth of Honey Creek in Hart Lake, at Crump, and Hart) and other accessible lakes the south end ofWarner Valley in Twentymile and sloughs in Warner Valley, and low- to Creek between the south end of the valley moderate-gradient reaches of tributary floor and the confluence with Twelvemile streams. The species description by Snyder Creek, and in Twelvemile Creek immediately (1908) was based on specimens collected from above and below the O'Keefe Diversion Dam. IDivi$ioll ofWiJdlile and Fisheries. Bureau ofLand r.bn~tne1lt, 18th <\ C Sb'eets, N. W.• \\~biopon, D. C. 20240. :iJhe Nature Conser'vallCy• .L205 Northwest 25th ....vetlue, Portand, ~ mlO. 1Jureau of L.nd M~g(:roent.BoJIISl. Lakeview. Oregoo 97630. ~('goD DepanmentofFlsh and \'t1Idlife. 8oJI12l4, Lakeview, Oregon 97630. 243 244 J. E. WILLIAMS ET AL. [Volume 50 In 1980 Coombs and Bond (1980) sampled lakes by use oftraps, gill nets, and seines, and Z2 sites throughout the basin, capturing 46 from streams with dip nets, trap nets, elec­ Warner suckers at 4 localities: Honey Creek troshocker, kick nets, and seines. Most fishes between Hatt Lake and the datn at Plush, were identified, measured, and returned to canals ofDeep Creek at the eastend ofPelican their habitat. Voucher specimens or those ac­ Lake, the spillway immediately north ofHart cidentally killed during collecting are housed Lake, and Swamp Lake. In 1983 Smith et al. at the Wildlife and Fisheries Museum, Uni­ (1984) captured 1 adolt Warner sucker in versity of California, Davis. Opercles from Crump Lake and 2 juveniles (approximately five suckers were aged according to the meth­ 130 mm total length [TL]) in Deep Creek ods described by Scoppettone (1988). Visual between Adel and the falls. In 1987 an adult observations were made of spawning Warner Warner sucker was caught by an angler along suckers in Honey Creek. the slongh just south of Flagstaff Lake a. E. Williams, personal observation). FOSKETI SPECKLED DACE This paper summarizes the current status ofthese two threatened fishes, as determined In 1987 the BLM acquired Foskett Spring by surveys conducted from 1987 to 1989. and the surrounding 65 ha, ofwhich approxi­ Other native fishes ofWarner Valley include a mately 28 ha were fenced to exclude cattle. local rorm of redband trout (Oncorhynchus The dace population at Foskett Spring has mykiss ssp.), tui chub (Gila birolor), and the since expanded to the spring pool its outflow, common form of speckled dace (R. o.culus). and downstream marsh. Baseline water qual­ The Warner Valley redband trout largely has ity and vegetation monitoring at Foskett and been displaced by introduced trout and is Dace springs were initiated by BLM in 1987. listed as "ofspecial concern" by the American TI,e following data collected on 28 September Fisheries Society (Williams et al. 1989). 1988 from Foskett Spring and Dace Spring, respectively, exemplify the two habitat simi­ HABITAT DESCRIPTION AND SURVEY METHODS larities: air temperature 19 and 17 C, water temperature 17 and 16 C, dissolved oxygen The Warner Basin comprises 6858 sq km in 5.3 and 5.9 mg/I, conductivity 350 and 250 sonth central Oregon and small portions of mohs/cm, pH 8.1 and 8.2, alkalinity 114 and northeastern Californiaand northwestern Ne­ 99 mg/l CaC03, hardness 40.0 and 24.7 mg/l, vada (Fig. 1). Drainage is internal and is di­ and turbidity 1.4 and 1. 8 NTU. vided between Coleman Valley and the much The dace population maintains itself at larger Warner Valley. Coleman Valley is a Dace Spring despite a tendencyfor vegetation separate drainage in the southeastern part of to choke outmost open water. The introduced the basin and receives sparse runoff. Observa­ population has expanded by movementoffish tions oCthe Foskett speckled daceand its habi­ through a connecting pipe into a livestock tatin Coleman Valley were made from 1987 to watering trough just east of the spring. No 1989. Standardized transects were estab­ other fish occur in Coleman Valley. lished along Foskett Spring and its outflow to monitor vegetation recovery following cessa­ WARNER SUCKER tion of grazing, and to qnantify atnonnts of open-water habitat. Surveys on Twentymile Creek above and In Warner Valley all water flows into a se­ below the Dyke Diversion Datn located I ries of north-south oriented shallow Jakes, adult and 2 larval Warner suckers in 1988. sloughs, and potholes. During periods with Additional 1987 and 1988 surveys failed to above-average precipitation, as occurred dur­ locate Warner suckers elsewhere in Twelve­ ing the early 1980s and again in 1989, these mile Creek (including sections in Nevada and lakes fill from the south and eventually over­ Oregon upstream of the Nevada border), the flow into the northern part ofthe valley. Only canal north ofHart Lake, the slough between the three most southerly lakes, Pelican, Flagstaff Lake and Mugwump Lake, the Crump, and Hart, are permanent. Fish col­ slough between Lower Campbell and Catnp­ lections in Warner Valley were made from bell lakes, or Stone Corral Lake. In April 1987 to 1989. Samples were collected from 1989, 28 adult suckers were captured at the 1990] THREAmNED WAIlNEIlBASIN FISHES 245 OREGON Warner Basin Alldt"fJOII I. t N • HurLol!.f oeep Cr. • CnlJu,Ru.. Adell , ~Cok_1I Oregon " FOSkelt· l.llb Twelt'emile Spring -- - ---- - - -- California I Nevada Fig. 1. The Warner Ba.<;in ofsoutb central Oregon. 246 1. E. WILLIAMS ET AL. [Volume 50 T>\IJLE L Frequency offishes collected in Warner Basin during 1987-89. All collection sites are in Lake County, Oregon, unless otherwise noted. Collections made at the same habitat arc combined. -- Large- Warner Tui Speckled White Black mouth Spotted Brown Location sucker elmh dace Troue crappie crappie bass bass bullhead Twelvemile Cl\ 40,j (Washoe Co" NV) 1\velvemile CC 591 51 Dyke Diversion Canal 1 Irrigation canal along 1 I 1 1\ventymilc Cr. • Twentymile Cr. G 25 854 " 2 4 Greaser Heservoir 476 1 2 Deep Creek 400 40 Hart Lake 70 12 1620 14 1 449 lower Honey Creek 69 upper Honey Creek 19 canal north ofHart Lake 7 -" 31 30 1 Anderson Lake ", 10 1 Flagstaff Lake slough 27 107 59 40 sloul{h between Lower 82 39 Campbell and Campbell Campbell Lake :l7I 95 Stone Corral Lake 17 5 Total caught 1'9"" 649 22·69 96 2183 lOG 2 1 607 Relative catch (%) 2.5 10.7 37.4 1.6 26.0 1.7 <0,1 <0,1 IO.O "May indude nalive redband trout Jed/OJ" intmij"cod roinhow trout mouth of Honey Creek in Hart Lake, and 42 Hart Lake, or the canal immediately north of were captured along the east side of Hart the lake.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Endangered Species
    FEATURE: ENDANGERED SPECIES Conservation Status of Imperiled North American Freshwater and Diadromous Fishes ABSTRACT: This is the third compilation of imperiled (i.e., endangered, threatened, vulnerable) plus extinct freshwater and diadromous fishes of North America prepared by the American Fisheries Society’s Endangered Species Committee. Since the last revision in 1989, imperilment of inland fishes has increased substantially. This list includes 700 extant taxa representing 133 genera and 36 families, a 92% increase over the 364 listed in 1989. The increase reflects the addition of distinct populations, previously non-imperiled fishes, and recently described or discovered taxa. Approximately 39% of described fish species of the continent are imperiled. There are 230 vulnerable, 190 threatened, and 280 endangered extant taxa, and 61 taxa presumed extinct or extirpated from nature. Of those that were imperiled in 1989, most (89%) are the same or worse in conservation status; only 6% have improved in status, and 5% were delisted for various reasons. Habitat degradation and nonindigenous species are the main threats to at-risk fishes, many of which are restricted to small ranges. Documenting the diversity and status of rare fishes is a critical step in identifying and implementing appropriate actions necessary for their protection and management. Howard L. Jelks, Frank McCormick, Stephen J. Walsh, Joseph S. Nelson, Noel M. Burkhead, Steven P. Platania, Salvador Contreras-Balderas, Brady A. Porter, Edmundo Díaz-Pardo, Claude B. Renaud, Dean A. Hendrickson, Juan Jacobo Schmitter-Soto, John Lyons, Eric B. Taylor, and Nicholas E. Mandrak, Melvin L. Warren, Jr. Jelks, Walsh, and Burkhead are research McCormick is a biologist with the biologists with the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation Status of Threatened Fishes in Warner Basin, Oregon
    Great Basin Naturalist Volume 50 Number 3 Article 5 10-31-1990 Conservation status of threatened fishes in arnerW Basin, Oregon Jack E. Williams Division of Wildlife and Fisheries, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C. Mark A. Stern The Nature Conservancy, Portland, Oregon Alan V. Munhall Bureau of Land Management, Lakeview, Oregon Gary A. Anderson Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Lakeview, Oregon Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/gbn Recommended Citation Williams, Jack E.; Stern, Mark A.; Munhall, Alan V.; and Anderson, Gary A. (1990) "Conservation status of threatened fishes in arnerW Basin, Oregon," Great Basin Naturalist: Vol. 50 : No. 3 , Article 5. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/gbn/vol50/iss3/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Western North American Naturalist Publications at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Great Basin Naturalist by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Creat &Isio N:l.luraUst 50(3), 1900, pp. 243-248 CONSERVATION STATUS OF THREATENED FISHES IN WARNER BASIN, OREGON 1 l 3 Jack E. Williams , MarkA. Stern \ Alan V. Munhall , and Cary A. Anderson"" A8S'TRACT.-Two fedemlJy listed fisbes, the Foskett speckled daceand Warnersucker, are endemic to Warner Basin in south central Oregon. The Foskett speckled dace is native only to a single spring in Coleman Valley. Anearby'spring was stocked with dace in 1979 and 1980, and now provides a second population. The present numbers ofdace probably are at their Wgbest levels since settlement ofthe region.
    [Show full text]
  • Amphibian Cascades Frog SOC X X Mountain Meadows, Bogs, Ponds Or
    Taxa Species Species SMU/ESU/D Federal State BM CP CR EC KM NR WC WV NS Special needs Limiting factors Data gaps Conservation actions Key reference or plan, if available Common Scientific PS/Group Listing listing Name Name Status status Amphibian Cascades SOC X X Mountain meadows, bogs, ponds or potholes Montane species vulnerable to genetic Habitat requirements and how they may vary by Maintain connectivity of habitat. Monitor effects of fish http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/ frog above 2,400 feet elevation. Requires access isolation. Experiencing substantial elevation within the species' range. Habitat stocking and water quality on populations. Carefully manage psw_gtr244/psw_gtr244.pdf to permanent water. Lays eggs in shallow reductions in southern parts of range characteristics that could enhance migration livestock grazing in occupied wet meadows. Use prescribed sunny edges of ponds, or on low vegetation (e.g., CA). Potentially sensitive to and gene flow. Feeding habits. Effects of burning or hand-felling of trees periodically to set plant near ponds where warm sunlight speeds egg waterborne pathogens. pathogens airborne environmental pollution. succession. If reintroductions are warranted, use individuals development. Larvae may “school” in large Feasibility studies on reintroduction at historic from nearby populations and consult results of feasibility masses. sites. studies. Conservation actions in Oregon are particularly valuable given reductions in other parts of range. Amphibian Cascade X X Cold, fast-flowing, clear, permanent headwater Larvae take several years to reach sexual Basic inventory, abundance and population Maintain stream buffers to maintain cool water Howell, B.L. and N. M. Maggiulli. 2011.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of the Interior
    United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office 2600 SE 98th Avenue, Suite 100 Portland, Oregon 97266 Phone: (503) 231-6179 FAX: (503) 231-6195 Reply To: 8330.F0047(09) File Name: CREP BO 2009_final.doc TS Number: 09-314 TAILS: 13420-2009-F-0047 Doc Type: Final Don Howard, Acting State Executive Director U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency, Oregon State Office 7620 SW Mohawk St. Tualatin, OR 97062-8121 Dear Mr. Howard, This letter transmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) Biological and Conference Opinion (BO) and includes our written concurrence based on our review of the proposed Oregon Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) to be administered by the Farm Service Agency (FSA) throughout the State of Oregon, and its effects on Federally-listed species in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Your November 24, 2008 request for informal and formal consultation with the Service, and associated Program Biological Assessment for the Oregon Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (BA), were received on November 24, 2008. We received your letter providing a 90-day extension on March 26, 2009 based on the scope and complexity of the program and the related species that are covered, which we appreciated. This Concurrence and BO covers a period of approximately 10 years, from the date of issuance through December 31, 2019. The BA also includes species that fall within the jurisdiction of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries Service).
    [Show full text]
  • Joseph R. Tomelleri 28 27
    Nevada 29 34 35 32 2 31 30 3 1 33 20 18 6 4 19 5 8 17 16 12 7 23 15 24 9 21 25 22 10 26 14 13 11 41 36 39 40 38 37 Illustrations by JOSEPH R. TOMELLERI 28 27 N A T I V E F I S H E S O F N E V A D A G R O U P IN G S B Y F A M ILY KILLIFISHES ∙ Cyprinodontidae 11. Big Spring spinedace ∙ Lepidomeda mollispinis pratensis† POOLFISHES ∙ Empetrichthyidae 31. Mountain sucker ∙ Catostomus platyrhynchus 1. Devils Hole pupfish ∙ Cyprinodon diabolis* 12. Moapa dace ∙ Moapa coriacea* 22. Preston White River springfish ∙ Crenichthys baileyi albivallis 32. Warner sucker ∙ Catostomus warnerensis† 2. Ash Meadows Amargosa pupfish ∙ Cyprinodon nevadensis mionectes* 13. Woundfin ∙ Plagopterus argentissimus* 23. Hiko White River springfish ∙ Crenichthys baileyi grandis* 33. Wall Canyon sucker ∙ Catostomus sp. 3. Warm Springs Amargosa pupfish ∙ Cyprinodon nevadensis pectoralis* 14. Colorado pikeminnow ∙ Ptychocheilus lucius* 24. Moapa White River springfish ∙ Crenichthys baileyi moapae 34. Cui-ui ∙ Chasmistes cujus* 25. Railroad Valley springfish ∙ Crenichthys nevadae† 35. Razorback sucker ∙ Xyrauchen texanus* MINNOWS ∙ Cyprinidae 15. Northern pikeminnow ∙ Ptychocheilus oregonesis 26. Pahrump poolfish ∙ Empetrichthys latos* 4. Desert dace ∙ Eremichthys acros† 16. Relict dace ∙ Relictus solitarius TROU T S ∙ Salmonidae 17. Moapa speckled dace ∙ Rhinichthys osculus moapae 5. Humpback chub ∙ Gila cypha* S CUL P INS ∙ Cottidae 36. Mountain whitefish ∙ Prosopium williamsoni 18. Ash Meadows speckled dace ∙ Rhinichthys osculus nevadensis* † 6. Bonytail chub ∙ Gila elegans* 27. Mottled sculpin ∙ Cottus bairdii 37. Lahontan cutthroat trout ∙ Onchorhynchus clarkii henshawi 19. White River speckled dace ∙ Rhinichthys osculus ssp.
    [Show full text]
  • Guam Marine Biosecurity Action Plan
    GuamMarine Biosecurity Action Plan September 2014 This Marine Biosecurity Action Plan was prepared by the University of Guam Center for Island Sustainability under award NA11NOS4820007 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Coral Reef Conservation Program, as administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management and the Bureau of Statistics and Plans, Guam Coastal Management Program. The statements, findings, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Guam Marine Biosecurity Action Plan Author: Roxanna Miller First Released in Fall 2014 About this Document The Guam Marine Biosecurity Plan was created by the University of Guam’s Center for Island Sustainability under award NA11NOS4820007 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Coral Reef Conservation Program, as administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management and the Bureau of Statistics and Plans, Guam Coastal Management Program. Information and recommendations within this document came through the collaboration of a variety of both local and federal agencies, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program (CRCP), the University of Guam (UOG), the Guam Department of Agriculture’s Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources (DAWR), the United States Coast Guard (USCG), the Port Authority of Guam, the National Park Service
    [Show full text]
  • Nevada Supplement Revised October 2000
    CERL Special Report 96/009 October 1995 Revised October 2000 US Army Corps of Engineers Engineer Research and Development Center The Environmental Assessment and Management (TEAM) Guide Nevada Supplement Revised October 2000 Environmental assessments help determine compliance with current environmental regulations. The U.S. Air Force, U.S. Army, Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), and Corps of Engi- neers (Civil Works) have adopted environmental compliance programs that identify compliance problems before they are cited as violations by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Since 1984, the U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, in cooperation with numerous Department of Defense (DOD) components, has developed environmental compliance assessment checklist manuals. The Environmental Assessment and Management (TEAM) Guide was developed for use by all DOD components. Currently there are five participating DOD components: the Air Force, Air National Guard, Army, Civil Works, and DLA. These agencies have agreed to share the development and maintenance of this Guide. The Guide combines Code of Federal Regulations and management practices into a series of checklists that show legal requirements and the specific operations or items to review. TEAM Guide is supplemented by DOD component- specific manuals detailing DOD component regulations and policies. The Nevada Supplement was developed to be used in conjunction with the TEAM Guide, using existing Nevada state environmental legislation and regulations as well as suggested management practices. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. FOREWORD This is USACERL Special Report 96/09. The report is based on the information available on Enflex Federal and State Regulations of August 2000. The research was performed for the Air National Guard under Military Interdepartmental Purchase Request (MIPR) number OMAF57/3400/357/A/9830147/PO, technical monitor Chuck Smith; and the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation Status of Imperiled North American Freshwater And
    FEATURE: ENDANGERED SPECIES Conservation Status of Imperiled North American Freshwater and Diadromous Fishes ABSTRACT: This is the third compilation of imperiled (i.e., endangered, threatened, vulnerable) plus extinct freshwater and diadromous fishes of North America prepared by the American Fisheries Society’s Endangered Species Committee. Since the last revision in 1989, imperilment of inland fishes has increased substantially. This list includes 700 extant taxa representing 133 genera and 36 families, a 92% increase over the 364 listed in 1989. The increase reflects the addition of distinct populations, previously non-imperiled fishes, and recently described or discovered taxa. Approximately 39% of described fish species of the continent are imperiled. There are 230 vulnerable, 190 threatened, and 280 endangered extant taxa, and 61 taxa presumed extinct or extirpated from nature. Of those that were imperiled in 1989, most (89%) are the same or worse in conservation status; only 6% have improved in status, and 5% were delisted for various reasons. Habitat degradation and nonindigenous species are the main threats to at-risk fishes, many of which are restricted to small ranges. Documenting the diversity and status of rare fishes is a critical step in identifying and implementing appropriate actions necessary for their protection and management. Howard L. Jelks, Frank McCormick, Stephen J. Walsh, Joseph S. Nelson, Noel M. Burkhead, Steven P. Platania, Salvador Contreras-Balderas, Brady A. Porter, Edmundo Díaz-Pardo, Claude B. Renaud, Dean A. Hendrickson, Juan Jacobo Schmitter-Soto, John Lyons, Eric B. Taylor, and Nicholas E. Mandrak, Melvin L. Warren, Jr. Jelks, Walsh, and Burkhead are research McCormick is a biologist with the biologists with the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • California's Freshwater Biodiversity
    CALIFORNIA’S FRESHWATER BIODIVERSITY IN A CONTINENTAL CONTEXT Science for Conservation Technical Brief November 2009 Department of Conservation Science The Nature Conservancy, California Freshwater Biodiversity in California 2 California’s Freshwater Ecoregions in a Continental Context A Science for Conservation Technical Brief The Nature Conservancy, California The Freshwater Conservation Challenge Worldwide, freshwater species and habitats are, on average, more imperiled than their terrestrial or marine counterparts. In continental North America alone, 40% of freshwater fish are at risk of extinction or already extinct (Jelks et al. 2008). Despite concerns over the health of the world’s freshwater species and systems (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005), there have been few attempts to systematically describe patterns of freshwater biodiversity on Earth. This is due in part to the lack of comprehensive, synthesized data on the distributions of freshwater species (Abell 2008). Without a robust biodiversity foundation, conservationists face challenges in setting freshwater protection priorities and agendas at the global, continental and regional scales. Freshwater Ecoregions of the World Project To fill this void, in 2008, World Wildlife Fund-US, The Nature Conservancy, and more than 130 scientists participated in the Freshwater Ecoregions of the World (FEOW) project. FEOW identified 426 freshwater ecoregions and provided information on freshwater biogeography and biodiversity; similar analyses exist for the terrestrial and marine realms. Until this effort, global biodiversity classification and planning efforts had been characterized using land-based parameters. FEOW is the first attempt to describe the world from a freshwater perspective. With this information, scientists and conservationists can more clearly compare freshwater biota and their conservation needs across large geographies.
    [Show full text]
  • Read the Full Recovery Plan
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Recovery Plan forthe Threatened and Rare Native Fishes ofthe Warner Basin and Alkali Subbasin Warner Sucker (Castostom us ‘warmeren sir) I ‘=1W’~ Hutton Thi Chub Foskett Speckled Dace (Gila. bicolor ssp.) (Ril inichthys osenins ssp.) RECOVERY PLAN FOR THE NATIVE FISHES OF THE WARNER BASIN AND ALKALI SUBBASIN: Warner sucker (Threatened) Catostomus warnerensis Hutton tui chub (Threatened) Gila bicolor ssp. Foskett speckled dace (Threatened) Rhinichthys osculus ssp. Prepared By U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Oregon State Office) for Region 1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Portland, Oregon Appoved: “I Date: DISCLAIMER PAGE Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions which are believed to be required to recover and/or protect listed species. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and others. Plans are reviewed by the public and submitted to additional peer review before they are adopted by the Service. Objectives will be attained and any necessary finds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Costs indicated for task implementation and/or time of achievement ofrecovery are estimates and subject to change. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor official positions or approval ofany individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They represent the official position ofthe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Regional Director or Director as approved.
    [Show full text]
  • Information Reports Number 2011-02
    INFORMATION REPORTS NUMBER 2011-02 FISH DIVISION Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Status, Distribution, and Life History Investigations of Warner Suckers, 2006- 2010 Status, Distribution, and Life History Investigations of Warner Suckers, 2006-2010 Sunset on Hart Lake looking southwest with the Warner Mountains in the background. Photo credit: S. Starcevich Paul Scheerer1, Steven Jacobs1, Mark Terwilliger2, Stephanie Miller1, Stephanie Gunckel1, Shannon Richardson1, and Michael Heck3 1Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Native Fish Investigations Project 28655 Highways 34, Corvallis, Oregon 97333 2Oregon State University Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Nash Hall, Corvallis, Oregon 97330 3U.S. Geological Service Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center 3200 SW Jefferson Way, Corvallis, Oregon 97331 This project was financed with funding from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (task orders 134206M093, HLP073006, HLP083003), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (task orders 134206M086, 134207M085, and 134208J814 and contracts E-2-46 and E-2-50), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (task orders W66QKZ8094612 and W66QKZ90227848) and Oregon Conservation Strategy (contract T-17-1). CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 METHODS .................................................................................................................................... 3 Distribution and Abundance of Suckers in the Warner Lakes ........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Population Genetics of Endangered Catostomid Fishes
    POPULATION GENETICS OF ENDANGERED CATOSTOMID FISHES OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA Contract: FG-8143 Draft Final Report: April 1, 1991 Peter B. Moyle, Principal Investigator William 3. Berg, Co-principal Investigator Department of Wildlife & Fisheries Biology University of California Davis, CA 95616' INTRODUCTION Three catostomid species native to northern California and southern Oregon are federally and state listed endangered species: Modoc sucker, (Catostomus mierops Rutter), shortnose sucker (Chasmistes brevirostris Cope), and Lost River sucker (Deltistes luxatus (Cope)). Each of these species have been reported to be experiencing census declines to critical levels due primarily to habitat alterationand loss and hybridization with other sucker species Cilliams et al. 1989). The Modoc sucker is known from only two disjunct areas: the Turner- Huibert—ashington Creeks drainage and the Rush—Johnson Creeks system (Moyle 1974). Threats to this species include continued habitat loss to grazing - induced erosion and drought conditions and presumed hybridization with Sacramento suckers (Catostomus occidentalis Ayres). Erosion of stream barriers has allowed Sacramento suckers access to Modoc sucker spawning sites. If Sacramento suckers hybridize with Modoc suckers and genetic introgression occurs, pure Modoc suckers may vanish. The mcst current census estimate of only 1,300 individuals (Mills 1980) suggests quick action must be taken to prevent the Modoc sucker from slipping towards extinction. Such action muSt - . focus on saving the "purest" Modoc sucker populations. As with the Modoc sucker, both the Lost River sucker and the shortnose sucker have experienced substantial population reductions. Extensive habitat alteration has occurred and interspecific hybridization has been postulated. Morphological evidence indicating hybridization of shortnose suckers with Klamath smallscale suckers (Catostomus timiculus Gilbert and Snyder) in Copco 2 Reservoir (Miler and Smith 1961) and Klamath largescale suckers (Catostomus snvderi Gilbert) in Clear Lake Reservoir (Williams et al.
    [Show full text]