An#Objective#Method#To#Quantify#The#Location#Criterion#Used# To#Classify#Species#At#Risk#In#Canada

An#Objective#Method#to#Quantify#the#Location#Criterion#used# to#Classify#Species#at#Risk#in#Canada#

# by# #

Gabrielle#Malcolm#

A#thesis#submitted#in#conformity#with#the#requirements# for#the#degree#of#Masters#of#Science# Ecology#and#Evolutionary#Biology## University#of#Toronto#

©#Copyright#by#Gabrielle#Malcolm#2015#

An#Objective#Method#to#Quantify#the#Location#Criterion#used#to# Classify#Species#at#Risk#in#Canada#

Gabrielle#Malcolm#

Masters#of#Science#

Ecology#and#Evolutionary#Biology## University#of#Toronto#

2015# Abstract(

Location#is#an#indicator#often#used#in#the#conservation#assessments#of#species#by#the#

Committee#on#the#Status#of#Endangered#Wildlife#in#Canada#(COSEWIC).#The#guidelines#on# the#definition#and#calculation#of#location#have#received#criticism#for#their#ambiguity.#To# examine#the#application#of#location,#I#summarized#the#use#of#locations#in#COSEWIC# assessment#reports#for#86#Canadian#freshwater#taxa.#I#propose#an#alternative#method#for# calculating#location#using#a#standardized#geographic#buffer.#Simulations#to#test#the# applicability#of#the#buffer#were#conducted#in#ArcGIS#using#distribution#data,#scale#of#the# primary#threat,#and#minimum#area#for#viable#population#for#20#imperiled#freshwater#fish# species#of#southern#Ontario.#The#shape#of#the#buffer#is#dependent#on#the#species#habitat# and#the#primary#threat#to#the#species.#My#proposed#objective#method#of#calculating#location# will#contribute#to#more#accurate#conservation#assessments#of#species,#and#subsequent# development#and#implementation#of#conservation#strategies.##

Acknowledgments.

There%are%many%people%I%would%like%to%thank%who%have%helped%me%with%the%production% of%my%Master’s%thesis.%First%I%would%like%to%thank%my%supervisors,%Professor%Donald%Jackson%and% Professor%Nick%Mandrak,%who%have%both%inspired%me%to%further%my%studies%in%aquatic%ecology% and%conservation%biology.%Don,%your%thoughtful%mentorship%and%encouragement%have%helped% me%shape%my%research%ideas,%and%gave%me%the%necessary%motivation%to%complete%this%chapter%in% my%life.%Nick,%your%extensive%knowledge%and%enthusiasm%towards%Canadian%freshwater%fishes% and%conservation%policy%have%always%been%inspiring.%Thank%you%for%your%continued%patience,% encouragement,%and%helpful%inputs%throughout%my%Master’s,%especially%when%it%came%to%the% writing%process.%I%cannot%express%how%grateful%I%am%to%have%had%you%both%as%my%supervisors.%To% my%advisory%committee%members,%Dr.%Ken%Minns%and%Dr.%Marty%Krkosek,%I%am%truly%thankful%for% your%insightful%questions%and%comments%that%contributed%tremendously%to%the%shaping%of%this% Master’s%thesis.%

%% To%the%Jackson%lab%(Karen,%Cindy,%Chris,%Karl,%Georgina,%Lifei,%and%Brie),%Mandrak%lab% (Andrew,%Sarah,%Natalie,%Rowshyra,%Meagan,%and%Fielding),%and%its%extended%members%(Liset,% Mateus,%and%many%more):%thank%you%for%being%amazing%colleagues,%mentors,%and%friends%that% made%this%Masters%an%enjoyable%journey.%To%members%of%the%Nathan%Lovejoy%lab%(Charmaine,% Megan,%Matt,%Alex,%Dominik,%Emma,%Ahmed,%Frankie,%Thanara,%and%Mike):%thank%you%for%being% great%friends%and%helping%me%with%the%preparation%of%my%defense.%%%

% To%Kevin%and%Gerald%from%the%Maps%and%data%Library%at%the%University%of%Toronto,%you% have%been%a%tremendous%help%in%building%my%methods%in%ArcGIS%10.2%and%teaching%me%the% necessary%skills%to%be%able%to%work%with%GIS%on%my%own.%Thank%you.%This%Master’s%could%not%have% been%completed%without%you.%%

% To%my%family:%Mom,%Dad,%Jeremy,%Chevon,%and%Peter,%thank%you%for%always%encouraging% me%to%follow%my%dreams.%To%Mom%and%Dad,%you%have%worked%so%hard%in%shaping%the%strongW minded,%independent,%and%passionate%woman%I%am%today.%Thank%you%for%always%believing%in%me% and%helping%to%support%my%education%throughout%the%years.%%

III

Table.of.Contents.

Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………II#

Acknowledgments#………………………………………………………………………………………………………..III#

List#of#Tables………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….V#

List#of#Figures……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….VI#

List#of#Appendices………………………………………………………………………………………………………VIII#

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..1#

Methods……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….10#

Results…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………21#

Discussion……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………29#

References…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...34#

List.of.Tables.

Table#1.#Summary#of#the#five#quantitative#criteria#developed#of#the#IUCN#and#used#by# COSEWIC#to#designate#species#at#risk#into#the#appropriate#conservation#category#(i.e.# Endangered,#Threatened,#or#Special#Concern)………………………………………………………………..2#

Table#2.#Lentic#and#lotic#values#for#MAVP1#and#MAVP2#calculated#for#20#freshwater#fish# species#at#risk#in#Ontario#using#formulas#provided#by#Velez_Espino#and#Koops#(2008a,# 2008b,#2008c).#Most#precautionary#values#used#in#this#study#are#shown#in#bold.#……………14#

List.of.Figures.

Figure#1.#Primary#threats#responsible#for#species#decline#in#freshwater#fish#species#of# Canada#that#are#classified#as#Endangered,#Threatened,#or#Special#Concern.#…………...... …….....5#

Figure#2.#Number#of#locations#for#species#where#the#primary#threat#is#habitat# loss/degradation#(a),#invasive#species#(b),#and#overharvest#(c)..………………….……………….7#_#8#

Figure#3.#The#percentage#of#freshwater#fish#species#having#one#or#less#than#one#location,# having#five#or#less#than#five#locations,#having#ten#or#less#than#ten#locations,#having#more# than#10#locations,#or#having#an#unknown#number#of#locations#in#each#threat#category#as# listed#in#COSEWIC#assessment#reports…………………………………………………………………………….9#

Figure#4.#Study#area………………………………………………………………………………………………….…...11#

Figure#5.#Flowchart#describing#the#seven#steps#to#estimate#the#number#of#locations#for# freshwater#species……………….…………………………………………………………..………………………….#.12#

Figure#6.#Example#of#the#inferred#distribution#for#Northern#Madtom#(Noturus'stigmosus)#for# sample#points#found#in#lotic#environments#…………………………...... 15#

Figure#7.#Example#of#the#inferred#distribution#for#Grass#Pickerel#(Esox'americanus' vermiculatus)#for#sample#points#found#in#lentic#environments………...……………………………...16#

Figure#8.#Example#of#10km#in_stream#threat#buffered#from#the#inferred#distribution#of# Northern#Madtom…………………………………………………………………………………………………………18#

Figure#9.#Example#of#10km#landscape#threat#buffered#from#the#inferred#distribution#of# Grass#Pickerel#………………………………………………………………………………………………………………19##

Figure#10.#Theoretical#example#displaying#the#relationship#between#four#sample# distribution#points#of#a#hypothetical#species#within#a#bifurcated#stream…………………………20#

Figure#11.#Methods#used#in#calculating#the#total#number#of#locations#reported#in#COSEWIC# assessments#for#86#freshwater#fish#species…………..………………………………………………………..22#

Figure#12.#Criteria#employed#in#designating#86#freshwater#fish#species#into#their#current# threat#category……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..23#

Figure#13.##COSEWIC_reported#locations#and#the#number#of#locations#calculated#using# 10km,#50km,#100km,#and#200km#in_stream#threat#buffers#(a)#and#landscape#threat#buffers# (b)#for#20#at_risk#freshwater#fish#species#in#Ontario…………………………………………………….…25#

Figure#14.#Number#of#locations#calculated#when#using#10km#(diamonds),#50km#(squares),# 100km#(triangles),#and#200km#(crosses)#in_stream#threat#buffers#plotted#against#COSEWIC_ reported#locations#for#20#at_risk#freshwater#species#in#Ontario#(a.)#Number#of#locations# calculated#when#using#10km#(diamonds),#50km#(squares),#100km#(triangles),#and#200km# (crosses)#landscape#threat#buffers#plotted#against#COSEWIC_reported#locations#for#20#at_ risk#freshwater#species#in#Ontario#(b).#…………………………………………………………….………….....26#

Figure#15.##Plotted#number#of#locations#calculated#for#in_stream#and#landscape#threats# using#a#10km#threat#buffer#(a),#50km#threat#buffer#(b),#100km#threat#buffer#(c),#and#200km# threat#buffer#(d)#for#20#at_risk#freshwater#fish#species#in#Ontario.#……………………………….....28#

VII

List.of.Appendices.

Appendix#1.#Definition#of#Location#as#stated#in#the#Guidelines#for#Using#the#IUCN#Red#List# Categories#and#Criteria#(IUCN#Standards#and#Petitions#Working#Group#2010)…………..38#

Appendix#2.#COSEWIC#designated#conservation#status#reported#primary#threat,#reported# number#of#locations,#and#reported#reason#for#designation#identified#for#86#freshwater# fish#species#at#risk#in#Canada……………………………………………………………………………...... 39#

Appendix#3.#Locations#calculated#for#20#freshwater#fish#species#at#risk#in#Ontario#using# buffers#representing#scale#of#in_stream#and#landscape#threats#at#10km,#50km,#100km# and#200km……………………...... 46#

Appendix#4.##Average#adult#body#length#(mm)#and#Average#adult#body#weight#(ug)# measurements#used#in#MAPV1#and#MAPV2#calculations#for#20#at_risk#freshwater#fish# species#………………...... 48#

VIII

An(Objective(Method(to(Quantify(the(Location(Criterion(used(to( Classify(Species(at(Risk(in(Canada(

1.(Introduction(

Freshwater#systems#support#a#highly#diverse#group#of#species#and#yet#are#in#one#of# the#most#significant#extinction#crises#(Duncan#and#Lockwood#2001).#More#than#20%#of# described#freshwater#fish#species#are#at#risk#of#extinction#in#the#near#future#(Duncan#and# Lockwood#2001).#This#projected#extinction#rate#is#not#nearly#as#high#in#terrestrial#species# (Ricciardi#and#Ramussen#1999).#In#North#America#alone,#61#species#and#subspecies#of# fishes#and#21#species#of#freshwater#mollusks#have#become#extinct#(Jelks#et#al.#2008).#The# primary#factors#contributing#to#this#decline#are#habitat#alteration#and#degradation,# pollution,#overexploitation,#and#introduction#of#alien#species#(Jelks#et#al.#2008).#Another# factor#contributing#indirectly#to#the#freshwater#fauna#rate#of#extinction#is#that#they#have# received#disproportionately#less#conservation#attention#than#their#terrestrial#and#avian# counterparts#(Duncan#and#Lockwood#2001).#Only#33%#of#all#described#freshwater#fish# species#and#3%#of#mollusks#have#been#assessed#using#the#International#Union#for#the# Conservation#of#Nature’s#(IUCN)#classification,#in#comparison#to#100%#coverage#in# mammals#and#avian#species,#and#94%#in#amphibians#(IUCN#2012).#

Prioritizing#conservation#strategies#is#important#for#the#conservation#of#all# vertebrates#given#that#approximately#17,000#species#are#considered#threatened#worldwide# (Lukey#and#Crawford#2009;#Hoffmann#et#al.#2010).#One#way#of#accomplishing#this#goal#has# been#to#classify#species#into#various#conservation#categories#and#apply#appropriate# management#strategies#based#on#the#category#under#which#the#species#falls.#Conservation# groups,#such#as#the#IUCN,#use#a#distinct#set#of#criteria#(Table#1)#to#classify#species#into# different#conservation#categories.#Their#Red#List#Categories#and#Criteria#are#the#most# recognized#and#widely#used#status#assessment#framework#(Martin_Lopez#et#al.#2011).# Predictors,#such#as#population#size,#geographical#range,#rate#of#decline,#number#of#mature# individuals,#and#fragmentation,#are#measured#and#compared#to#a#series#of#thresholds#to# assess#the#extinction#risk#of#species.#This#systematic#approach#is#used#to#facilitate#objective##

Table%1.%Summary%of%the%five%quantitative%criteria%developped%by%the%IUCN%and%used%by% COSEWIC%to%designate%species%at%risk%into%the%appropriate%conservation%category%(i.e.% Endangered,%Threatened,%or%Special%Concern).%The%number%of%locations%falls%under%criteria%B%and% D.%

EO.=.Extent.of.occurrence..

AO.=.Area.of.occupancy.

evaluations#and#standardize#measurements#across#all#taxa#(Mace#1994).#However,#there# are#disadvantages#to#using#a#systematic#approach#as#species#possess#different#biological# and#habitat#needs.#This#contrast#across#species#results#in#the#problem#many#conservation# groups#face:#How#can#they#ensure#proper#conservation#assessment#across#all#taxa?#

Criterion#B#of#the#IUCN#Red#List#Categories#and#Criteria#(Table#1)#alone#is#the# measure#responsible#for#the#support#to#list#more#than#40%#of#all#at_risk#species#(Gaston# and#Fuller#2009).#This#criterion#includes#Number#of#Locations,#Extent#of#Occurrence#(EO),# and#Area#of#Occupancy#(AO)#(IUCN#Standards#and#Petition#Working#Group#2008).#Extent#of# Occurrence#and#Area#of#Occupancy#are#both#measures#of#a#population’s#geographic#range,# which#is#indirectly#linked#to#population#health#(Gaston#2000).#Geographic#range#is#often#a# representation#of#population#abundance,#because#larger#populations#are#often#times#more# widespread#(Cardoso#et#al.#2011).#A#location#is#defined#as#a#geographically#or#ecologically# distinct#area#in#which#a#single#threatening#event#can#rapidly#affect#all#individuals#of#the# taxon#present#(IUCN#Standards#and#Petition#Working#Group#2008).#A#location#may#be#a# subpopulation#or#a#group#of#subpopulations.#There#is#also#the#possibility#of#having#multiple# locations#within#one#subpopulation#in#the#case#where#the#subpopulation#is#severely# fragmented#(IUCN#Standards#and#Petition#Working#Group#2008).#The#definition#goes#on#to# say#that#where#more#than#one#threat#may#be#affecting#the#species,#location#should#be# defined#by#considering#the#most#serious#plausible#threat#(IUCN#Standards#and#Petition# Working#Group#2008).##Under#Criterion#B,#a#species#is#classified#as#Critically#Endangered#if# it#is#known#to#exist#at#only#one#location,#as#Endangered#if#present#at#no#more#than#5# locations,#and#Vulnerable#if#present#at#no#more#than#10#locations#(IUCN#Standards#and# Petition#Working#Group#2008).#Species#classified#into#these#conservation#categories#receive# different#levels#of#conservation#actions#with#species#being#classified#as#Critically# Endangered#receiving#the#most#and#species#being#classified#as#Vulnerable#receiving#the# least.#Hence,#the#proper#classification#of#species#is#a#critical#step#when#it#comes#to#the# conservation,#protection,#and#recovery#of#species.#Ambiguity#surrounding#the#use#of#these# criteria#can#result#in#the#misclassification#of#species#and#misallocation#of#resources.#

The#definition#of#what#comprises#a#location#(Appendix#1)#has#been#criticized#for#its# ambiguity,#resulting#in#subjective#miscalculations#of#the#number#of#locations#(Akcakaya#et#

al.#2000;#Lukey#and#Crawford#2009).#The#IUCN#Red#List#Categories#and#Criteria#do#not# provide#a#detailed#definition#of#what#size#the#locations#should#be#or#if#they#should#be# uniform#in#size.#What#is#stated#is#that#the#size#of#the#location#depends#on#the#area#covered# by#the#threatening#event#(IUCN#Standards#and#Petition#Subcommittee#2008).#Often,#this# results#in#subjective#choices#of#both#threat#and#spatial#and#temporal#scale#that#may#lead#to# an#overestimation#or#an#underestimation#of#the#actual#number#of#locations.#Overestimation# of#the#number#of#locations#can#result#in#the#improper#classification#of#a#species#into#a#lower# threat#category,#while#underestimation#of#number#of#locations#can#result#in#the#improper# classification#of#a#species#into#a#higher#threat#category.#

The#Committee#on#the#Status#of#Endangered#Wildlife#in#Canada#(COSEWIC)#has# adopted#a#very#similar#protocol#to#that#of#the#IUCN#for#species#conservation#assessment.# COSEWIC#conservation#assessments#provide#the#basis#for#listing#species#under#the#federal# Species#at#Risk#Act#(SARA)#and#subsequent#development#and#implementation#of#species# recovery#strategies#and#action#plans,#and#management#plans#in#Canada.#COSEWIC#has# similar#thresholds#for#location.#Under#Criterion#B,#a#species#is#classified#as#Endangered#if#it# is#present#at#no#more#than#5#locations,#and#Threatened#if#it#is#present#at#no#more#than#10# locations#(COSEWIC#2012).#Due#to#the#similarity#in#both#the#IUCN#and#the#COSEWIC# protocols,#conservation#listing#of#species#in#Canada#is#subject#to#the#same#ambiguity# surrounding#Criterion#B.#

The#majority#of#COSEWIC’s#species#assessment#reports#identify#the#primary#and# secondary#threats#affecting#individuals#and#populations#of#each#species.#The#threats#can#fall# under#the#following#categories#used#in#the#IUCN#threat#calculator#used#by#COSEWIC:#habitat# loss#and#degradation,#alien#invasive#species,#harvest,#pollution,#natural#disaster,#change#in# native#species,#persecution,#or#human#disturbances.#Out#of#86#freshwater#fish#assessment# reports#available#on#the#SARA#registry,#habitat#loss#and#degradation#is#the#primary#threat# for#56#species,#overharvesting#is#the#primary#threat#for#26#species,#and#alien#and#invasive# species#is#the#primary#threat#for#19#species#(Figure#1).#

The#first#goal#of#this#study#is#to#examine#if#discrepancies#exist#in#previous# calculations#of#location#using#the#data#provided#in#COSEWIC#assessment#reports.#It#appears# that#Number#of#Locations#was#calculated#in#a#variety#of#largely#non_standardized#ways## 4

Figure%1.%Primary%threats%responsible%for%species%decline%in%freshwater%fish%species%that%are% classified%as%Endangered,%Threatened,%or%Special%Concern%in%Canada.%The%primary%threats%are% currently%determined%by%expert%opinion%and%are%identified%in%species%COSEWIC%status%and% assessment%reports.%In%the%event%that%more%than%one%primary%threat%is%identified%for%the%species,% the%most%serious%plausible%threat%must%be%used%for%the%calculation%of%locations.%%%

including#the#use#of#number#of#populations,#number#of#spawning#sites,#and#the#number#of# waterbodies#(e.g.#streams,#lakes,#drainages)#as#representatives#of#discrete#locations# (Appendix#2).##Moreover,#although#the#primary#threat#is#often#mentioned#in#the# assessments,#it#has#typically#not#influenced#the#calculation#of#location#(Figure#2a,#b,#c).#In# addition#to#these#issues,#the#number#of#locations#calculated#for#many#species#surpasses#the# location#threshold#of#its#conservation#status#(Figure#3).#In#some#cases,#Criterion#B#was#not# the#basis#for#designation;#however,#in#other#cases,#where#Criterion#B#was#the#basis#for# designation#(e.g.#Lake#Chubsucker,#Redside#Dace,#Vancouver#Lamprey)#(Appendix#2),#the# number#of#locations#surpasses#the#location#threshold.###

The#second#goal#of#this#study#is#to#develop#an#objective#method#for#calculating#the# number#of#locations#using:#1)#minimum#area#for#a#viable#population#(MAVP)#to#infer# species#distributions;#and,#2)#using#buffers#representing#scale#of#threat#to#define#locations.# Minimum#viable#population#sizes#can#be#calculated#using#a#number#of#models#developed#in# the#literature#(Reed#and#Bryant#2000;#Reed#et#al.#2003;#Velez_Espino#and#Koops#2008a,# 2008b,#2008c;#Schuler#and#Hayes#2011).##Species_specific#data#on#population#sizes,#habitat,# distribution,#and#certain#life_history#traits,#such#as#body#size,#will#be#used#to#run#location# simulations#based#on#inferred#distribution#and#threat#scale#and#type#in#ArcGIS.#Due#to#the# lack#of#species_specific#distribution#models#available#in#the#literature#for#Canadian# freshwater#fishes,#inferring#the#distribution#using#the#best#available#scientific#methods#is# advised#by#COSEWIC#(COSEWIC#2013).##The#buffer#will#consist#of#a#minimum#area# surrounding#the#location#and#its#size#will#be#dependent#on#the#scale#of#the#primary#threat.# The#shape#of#the#buffer#will#depend#on#the#shape#of#the#species#habitat,#the#existing# barriers#to#dispersal,#and#the#type#of#threat#(i.e.#in_stream#threats,#landscape#threats).#In#the# case#of#freshwater#species,#most#are#confined#to#‘linear#habitats’#(e.g.#streams,#coastlines)# and#their#dispersal#across#space#is#directional#and#hierarchical#within#watercourse# networks#(Hitt#and#Angermeier#2008).##

Standardized#objective#methods#for#calculating#the#number#of#locations#will# improve#future#species#assessments#in#Canada.#They#will#reduce#any#ambiguity# surrounding#use#of#the#term#and#will#minimize#discrepancies#due#to#subjective# interpretations.#

Figure%2.%Total%number%of%locations%for%species%where%the%primary%threat%is%habitat% loss/degradation%(a),%invasive%species%(b),%and%overharvest%(c).%Red%bars%represent%species% classified%as%Endangered,%blue%bars%represent%species%classified%as%Threatened,%and%orange%bars% represent%species%classified%as%Special%Concern.%This%figure%illustrates%that%although%the%primary% threat%is%mentioned%in%each%species%assessment%reports,%it%has%typically%not%influenced%the% calculation%of%location.%% 7

Figure%2%(cont.)% #

b) #

c) #

(

Figure#3.#The#percentage#of#freshwater#fish#species#having#one#or#less#than#one#location,# having#five#or#less#than#five#locations,#having#ten#or#less#than#ten#locations,#or#having#more# than#10#locations#in#each#threat#category.#Species#with#unknown#number#of#locations#were# also#included.#The#numbers#on#the#bars#represent#the#number#of#species#falling#within#each# range#of#locations#for#each#conservation#status#category.#This#figure#illustrates#that#the# number#of#locations#calculated#for#many#species#surpasses#the#location#threshold#of#its# conservation#status.#

(

2.(Methods(

2.1#COSEWIC#Assessments#for#Freshwater#Species#

# I#compiled#the#most#recent#COSEWIC#status#assessment#reports#on#Canadian# freshwater#fishes#that#were#classified#as#either#Endangered,#Threatened,#or#Special# concern,#totaling#86#reports#(Appendix#2).#Species#assessment#reports#were#obtained#from# the#SARA#registry#(www.sararegistry.gc.ca),#as#of#September#2013.#For#each#species# evaluated,#the#following#data#were#compiled:#1)#current#conservation#status;#2)#criteria# used#for#designation;#3)#number#of#locations#and#the#method#used#to#calculate#locations# when#available;#and,#4)#primary#threat.##I#only#considered#species#assessed#as#Special# Concern,#Threatened,#and#Endangered#because#the#number#of#locations#was#not#always# available#for#species#categorized#under#Not#at#Risk#or#Data#Deficient.#

2.2#Evaluating#Location#Calculations##

## To#evaluate#the#current#COSEWIC#method#for#calculating#the#number#of#locations,#I# used#a#subset#of#20#freshwater#fish#species#in#Ontario.#Distribution#data#for#these#species# were#obtained#from#the#Canadian#Department#of#Fisheries#and#Oceans#(DFO)#(Mandrak,# unpublished#data).##These#data#were#originally#compiled#for#conducting#COSEWIC# assessments#and#included#both#historical#and#recent#records#collected#from#all#available# sources.#These#sources#ranged#from#fish#community#surveys#to#targeted#sampling# conducted#by#various#organizations,#including#DFO#and#the#Ontario#Ministry#of#Natural# Resources#and#Forestry#(OMNRF),#as#well#as#independent#surveys#conducted#for#research# and#museum#collections#from#the#Canadian#Museum#of#Nature#and#the#Royal#Ontario# Museum.#The#distribution#data#for#the#subset#of#species#were#restricted#to#southern# Ontario#(Figure#4)#since#species#distribution#data#were#readily#available#for#a#relatively# large#number#of#species#within#this#region.#There#has#been#a#decrease#in#the#ecosystem# health#of#local#freshwater#fauna#in#this#area#caused#by#urbanization#and#agricultural# pressures#(Chu#et#al.#2003)#(e.g.#habitat#loss,#dam#construction,#water#extraction,#pollution# and#invasive#species),#making#southern#Ontario#an#ideal#area#to#study#species#at#risk.####

Figure#4.#Map#showing#the#relevant#region#of#southern#Ontario.#The#area#highlighted#in# beige#represents#the#study#area#(from#Cheng#2013).#

All#GIS#analyses#conducted#in#this#study#were#completed#using#ArcMap#10.2#(ESRI# 2011).#For#each#of#the#20#freshwater#fishes,#I:#1)#plotted#the#known#distribution#points#onto# a#map#of#Southern#Ontario;#2)#estimated#the#species#MAVP#based#on#fish#body#size;#3)# inferred#the#distribution#of#the#species#by#using#the#estimated#MAVP#to#buffer#the#area# surrounding#each#known#distribution#point;#4)#classified#primary#threats#into#two# categories#representing#the#nature#of#the#threat:#in_stream#or#landscape;#5)#assigned# hypothetical#measures#representing#the#scale#of#the#most#plausible#threat;#6)#buffered#the# inferred#distribution#using#nature#and#scale#of#most#plausible#threat;#and,#7)#assessed#the# total#number#of#locations#based#on#the#overlap#of#buffers#at#different#scales#(Figure#5).###

Figure%5.%Flowchart%describing%the%seven%steps%to%estimate%the%number%of%locations%for% freshwater%species%using%the%objective%method%described%in%this%study.%%%

2.3#Inferred#distribution##

# To#identify#locations,#the#known#and#inferred#distribution#of#the#species#was#first# identified.##The#inferred#distribution#represents#the#total#area#where#a#group#of#individuals# of#the#same#species#are#most#likely#to#be#found.#The#minimum#area#for#a#viable#population# (MAVP)#was#used#to#buffer#around#each#known#distribution#point#(Table#2),#representing# the#potential#distribution#of#the#species.#The#MAVP#for#a#species#is#calculated#by# multiplying#the#minimum#viable#population#size#(MVP)#and#the#area#per#individual#(API).# Velez_Espino#and#Koops#(2008a,#2008b,#2008c)#provided#two#formulas#that#use#basic#life_ history#traits,#such#as#average#body#length#and#average#body#weight,#to#calculate#MAVP#for# lentic#and#lotic#environments#separately.#To#take#a#conservative#approach,#the#largest# MAVP#of#the#two#calculations#was#chosen#as#the#measure#to#represent#the#species#inferred# distribution#(Table#2).##

For#distribution#points#found#in#lotic#environments,#predicted#length#of#the#inferred# distribution#for#each#species#was#calculated#as#the#MAVP#divided#by#stream#width.#As# stream#width#is#not#available#for#every#stream#reach#that#contains#a#species#distribution# point,#stream#width#was#estimated#based#on#Strahler#order#using#the#equation#provided#in# Cheng#(2013).#The#average#length#of#the#MAVP#buffer#across#all#Strahler#orders#was#taken# for#each#species#individually#and#centered#over#each#known#distribution#point#(Figure#6).# The#MAVP#buffer#was#determined#using#the#Network#Analyst#tool#in#ArcMap#10.2.#The# buffer#was#set#to:#1)#travel#strictly#within#the#stream#network;#2)#stop#if#it#was#intersected# by#a#dam;#and,#3)#stop#if#it#intersected#the#boundary#of#a#tertiary#watershed.#Dam#data#and# tertiary#watershed#data#were#downloaded#directly#from#the#OMNRF#website## (https://www.javacoeapp.lrc.gov.on.ca/geonetwork/srv/en/main.home?uuid=9a57609e_ 0047_4c3b_9100_c78a7d4cf614#(dams),# https://www.javacoeapp.lrc.gov.on.ca/geonetwork/srv/en/metadata.show?uuid=c445f2d 3_f92c_47ec_8f59_9afccf2fdd55&currTab=simple(watershed,#tertiary))#

For#the#purpose#of#this#study,#all#dams#were#considered#barriers#to#dispersal#when# calculating#MAVP#regardless#of#dam#type#and#potential#permeability.#Overlapping#linear# buffers#were#considered#a#single#continuous#area#representing#the#inferred#distribution#of# a#particular#species.## 13

Table%2.%Lentic%and%lotic%values%for%MAVP1%and%MAVP2%calculated%for%20%freshwater%fish%species% at%risk%in%Ontario%using%formulas%provided%by%VelezWEspino%and%Koops%(2008a,%2008b,%2008c).% Most%precautionary%values%used%in%this%study%are%highlighted%in%bold.%%

%% %% MAVP1.(m2). %% MAVP2.(m2). %% COSEWIC. Common.Name.. status. Lotic. Lentic. Lotic.. Lentic. Lake%Chubsucker%% EN%% 95.653. 315.472. 35%479% 117%013% Northern%Madtom%% EN% 1%264% 5%611% 3.708. 16.457. Pugnose%Shiner%% EN%% 117% 604% 210. 1.085. Redside%Dace%% EN% 749% 3%395% 1.478. 6.697. Silver%Chub% EN%% 9%408% 36%615% 38.992. 151.746. Black%Redhorse%% TH% 1%176%989% 3%100%995% 2.042.338. 5.380.916. Channel%Darter%% TH% *342% *1%686% *411. *2.026. Eastern%Sand%Darter%% TH% 199% 968% 223. 1.085. Lake%Sturgeon%% TH% 164%217%570% 305%578%992% 379.349.277. 705.899.922. Pugnose%Minnow% TH% 117% 604% 210. 1.085. Silver%Shiner%% TH% 2%883% 11904% 6.395. 26.402. Spotted%Gar%% TH% 3%732%014% 9%088%384% 7.341.625. 17.878.683. Blackstripe%Topminnow% SC% 170% 880% 575. 2.971. Bridle%Shiner% SC% 108% 558% 194. 1.002. Grass%Pickerel% SC% 49%514% 170%521% 199.999. 688.777. Northern%Brook%Lamprey%% SC% 6.029. 21.825. 2%246% 8%130% River%Redhorse%% SC% 3%515%092% 8%914%396% 15.892.527. 40.304.005. Silver%Lamprey%% SC% 91.303. 278.330. 62%270% 189%826% Spotted%Sucker% SC% 19%785% 60%313% 115.369. 351.695. Warmouth%% SC% 44%737% 160%248% 376.512. 1.348.675.

*%values%were%taken%from%VelezWEspino,%Randall%and%Koops%(unpublished),%no%weight%data%were% found

Figure%6.%Example%of%the%inferred%distribution%for%Northern%Madtom%(Noturus'stigmosus)%for% sample%points%found%in%lotic%environments.%The%blue%lines%represent%stream%network;%yellow% circles%represent%sample%points%of%Northern%Madtom;%crosses%represent%dams;%and,%red%lines% represent%the%inferred%distribution%using%MAVP.%'

For#distribution#points#found#in#lentic#environments,#circular#buffers#were#used#to# represent#MAVP#(Figure#7).#The#total#area#of#the#circular#buffers#was#centered#over#each# distribution#point.#The#buffer#was#set#to#stop#if#it#intersected#a#watershed#boundary.# Overlapping#circular#buffers#were#considered#to#be#a#single#continuous#area#representing# the#inferred#distribution#of#a#particular#species.#Linear#and#circular#buffers#never# overlapped#due#to#watershed#boundary#stopping#rules.#

Figure%7.%Example%of%the%inferred%distribution%for%Grass%Pickerel%(Esox'americanus'vermiculatus)% for%sample%points%found%in%lentic%environments.%The%blue%lines%represent%the%stream%network;% yellow%circles%represent%Grass%Pickerel%sample%points;%black%lines%represent%tertiary%watershed% boundaries;%and,%pink%circles%represent%the%inferred%distribution%using%MAVP.%

2.4#Primary#threat#and#scale#of#threat#

# Threats#were#classified#into#eight#categories,#adapted#from#IUCN#(2012):#habitat#loss# and#degradation;#alien#species#invasion;#over_harvesting;#pollution;#natural#disaster;# change#in#native#species#composition;#persecution;#and,#other#human#disturbances.##The# primary#threat#for#each#species#was#identified#based#on#the#information#provided#in#the#

COSEWIC#status#assessment#report.##A#primary#threat#is#often#also#the#most#plausible# threat,#and#can#be#defined#as#a#major#factor#known#to#cause#risk#of#extinction#(IUCN#2010).# For#the#purpose#of#this#study,#I#further#categorized#each#threat#as#either#a#landscape#threat# or#an#in_stream#threat.#Landscape#threats#covered#areas#that#may#have#included#a# waterbody,#but#the#threat#was#not#confined#to#it.#Examples#of#the#landscape#threat#category# include#pollution#(e.g.#acid#rain),#habitat#loss#and#degradation#(e.g.#loss#of#buffer#zones),# natural#disasters#(e.g.#severe#storms,#forest#fires),#and#human#disturbances#(e.g.#housing# development).#In_stream#threats#are#confined#to#the#boundaries#of#the#stream#network#and# may#be#influenced#by#the#direction#of#the#water#flow#and#boundaries#to#dispersal#(e.g.# dams).#Examples#of#the#in_stream#threat#category#include#aquatic#invasive#species#(e.g.# Zebra#Mussel#(Dreissena'polymorpha),#Round#Goby#(Neogobius'melanostomus),#pollution# (e.g.#dumping,#oil#spill),#habitat#loss#and#degradation,#harvest,#natural#disasters,# persecution,#and#human#disturbances#(e.g.#boating).##

# Once#the#most#plausible#threat#for#each#species#was#identified,#the#next#step#was#to# determine#its#scale.#Since#I#could#find#no#studies#in#the#literature#on#the#scale#of#threats#to# freshwater#taxa,#I#used#hypothetical#scales#to#represent#different#potential#threat#scales#to# examine#the#sensitivity#of#Number#of#Locations#to#threat#scale.#For#in_stream#threats,#linear# buffers#that#that#ran#only#within#the#stream#network#were#used#to#buffer#the#inferred# distribution#of#the#species#(Figure#8).#The#lengths#of#the#hypothetical#in_stream#threats# were#set#to#10km,#50km,#100km,#and#200km#extending#from#both#ends#of#the#inferred# distribution.#For#landscape#threats,#circular#buffers#were#used#to#buffer#the#inferred# distribution#of#each#sample#distribution#point#(Figure#9).#The#radii#of#hypothetical# landscape#threats#were#set#to#10km,#50km,#100km,#and#200km#from#the#inferred# distribution.#The#areas#representing#the#inferred#distribution#that#were#joined#by# overlapping#threat#buffers#were#considered#one#location#(Figure#10).#Counting#the#total# number#of#areas#joined#by#overlapping#threat#buffers#assessed#the#total#number#of# locations#for#the#Southern#Ontario#distribution#of#each#fish#species.#

# b)

Figure%8.%Example%of%10km%inWstream%threat%buffered%from%the%inferred%distribution%of%Northern% Madtom.%The%blue%lines%represent%the%stream%network;%yellow%circles%represent%Northern% Madtom%sample%points;%black%lines%represent%tertiary%watershed%boundaries;%red%lines% represent%the%inferred%distribution;%and,%green%lines%represent%10km%inWstream%buffer.%The% overlapping%threat%buffers%suggest%the%presence%of%two%locations%in%this%figure%(a).%%

Figure%9.%Example%of%10km%landscape%threat%buffered%from%the%inferred%distribution%of%Grass% Pickerel.%The%blue%lines%represent%the%stream%network;%yellow%circles%represent%Grass%Pickerel% sample%points;%black%lines%represent%tertiary%watershed%boundaries;%pick%circles%represent%the% inferred%distribution;%and,%green%circles%represent%10km%inWstream%buffer.%The%overlapping% threat%buffers%suggest%the%presence%of%a%single%location%in%this%figure.%

2.5#Analysis#

Both#in_stream#and#landscape#threats#were#applied#at#four#different#scales#(10km,# 50km,#100km,#200km),#totaling#8#hypothetical#threat#scenarios#for#each#of#the#20#species.# All#inferred#distributions#within#overlapping#buffered#areas#were#considered#to#be#a#single# location.##

In-stream threat buffer Landscape threat buffer a) # c)

# b) d) #

Figure%10.%%Theoretical%example%displaying%the%relationship%between%four%distribution%points%(A,% B,%C,%and%D)%of%a%hypothetical%species%within%a%bifurcated%stream.%The%dark%blue%line%represents% the%stream%network%(i.e.%lotic%environment),%the%arrows%represent%the%direction%of%the%water% flow%within%the%streams,%the%light%blue%lines%represent%the%inferred%distribution%buffered%around% each%sample%distribution%point%represented%by%the%black%dots,%and%the%red%lines%or%circles% represent%the%threat%buffers.%The%inferred%distributions%joined%by%overlapping%threat%buffers%are% considered%one%location%(a,%c),%whereas,%where%the%threat%buffers%do%not%overlap,%there%are%3% separate%locations%(b,%d).%%

I#compared#the#number#of#locations#obtained#in#in_stream#and#landscape#scenarios# to#the#number#of#locations#calculated#by#COSEWIC,#as#well#as#the#difference#in#locations# calculated#for#landscape#threats#and#locations#calculated#for#in_stream#threats.#

(

3.(Results((

3.1#Summary#of#COSEWIC#Assessment#for#Freshwater#Fish#Species#

The#review#of#COSEWIC#reports#for#freshwater#fishes#revealed#a#high#number#of# freshwater#fish#species#for#which#the#number#of#locations#did#not#fall#below#the#location# threshold#of#its#conservation#status#(Figure#3).#Approximately#16%#of#the#freshwater#fish# species#assessed#as#Endangered#had#more#than#5#locations;#more#than#38%#of#the# freshwater#fish#species#assessed#as#Threatened#had#more#than#10#locations;#and,#more#than# 65%#of#freshwater#fish#species#assessed#as#Special#Concern#had#10#locations#or#fewer.##

The#number#of#locations#reported#in#the#COSEWIC#assessments#for#freshwater#fishes# varied#in#the#methods#used#(Figure#11).#Of#86#freshwater#fish#species#assessed#by#COSEWIC# used#in#this#study:#30#reports#calculated#locations#based#on#species#presence#in# waterbodies;#27#reports#calculated#locations#based#on#the#total#estimated#number#of# populations#for#the#species;#7#reports#used#spawning#and#overwintering#sites#to#calculate# number#of#locations;#6#reports#divided#waterbodies#into#more#than#one#“location”,# however,#how#the#divisions#were#made#was#not#clearly#stated#in#the#report;#2#reports# directly#translated#the#number#of#sampling#points#for#the#species#as#the#number#of# locations;#and,#14#reports#did#not#have#any#information#on#how#the#number#of#locations# was#calculated.##

# The#compilation#of#these#assessments#indicated#that#Criterion#A,#Criterion#B,#and# Criterion#D#are#the#most#frequently#used#criteria#for#designation#of#freshwater#fish#species# into#Endangered#and#Threatened#risk#categories#(Figure#12).#Criterion#A,#Criterion#B,#and#

Figure%11.%Methods%used%in%calculating%the%total%number%of%locations%reported%in%COSEWIC% assessments%for%86%freshwater%fish%species.%Directly%translating%the%number%of%sampling%points% to%the%number%of%locations,%the%number%of%spawning%sites%to%the%number%of%locations,%the% number%of%waterbodies%to%the%number%of%locations,%and%the%number%of%populations%to%the% number%of%locations%are%nonWstandardized%ways%of%calculating%location.%Six%reports%divided% waterbodies%into%more%than%one%“location”,%however,%how%the%divisions%were%made%was%not% clearly%stated%in%the%report.%A%total%of%14%reports%did%not%report%the%methods%they%used%for% calculating%locations.%%

Criterion#D#were#used#alone,#or#in#conjunction#with#other#criteria,#as#a#reason#for# designation:#58%#of#the#Endangered#and#12%#of#the#Threatened#species#were#assessed# using#Criterion#A;#48%#of#the#Endangered#and#31%#of#the#Threatened#species#were# assessed#using#Criterion#B;#and,#46%#of#the#Threatened#fish#species#were#assessed#using# Criterion#D.#Criterion#B#was#identified#as#the#factor#responsible#for#listing#40%#of#species# into#Endangered#or#Threatened#risk#categories.#

Figure%12.%Criteria%employed%in%designating%86%freshwater%fish%species%into%their%current%threat% category.%Criterion%A,%Criterion%B,%and%Criterion%C%are%the%most%frequently%used%criteria%for%the% designation%of%freshwater%fish%species%into%their%current%conservation%categories.%Criteria%A%was% responsible%for%the%listing%of%58%%of%EN%and%12%%of%TH%freshwater%fish%species;%Criterion%B%was% responsible%for%the%listing%of%48%%of%EN%and%31%%of%TH%freshwater%fish%species;%Criteria%C%was% responsible%for%the%listing%of%23%%of%EN%and%4%%of%TH,%Criterion%D%was%responsible%for%3%%of%EN% and%46%%of%TH%freshwater%fish%species;%and%Criterion%E%was%responsible%for%the%listing%of%6%%of% EN%freshwater%fish%species.%All%criteria%may%have%been%used%alone%or%in%conjunction%with%other% criteria%for%the%listing%of%these%species.%%

The#primary#threats#identified#to#have#contributed#to#the#imperilment#of#Canadian# freshwater#fishes#were#compiled#based#on#the#COSEWIC#assessment#reports#for#each# species#(Figure#1).#In#many#cases,#multiple#primary#threats#were#listed#per#species#(47#of# 86#species).#Habitat#loss#and#degradation#was#the#most#common#threat#with#it#identified#as# a#primary#threat#for#nearly#69%#of#species#(59#species).#Harvest#was#cited#as#the#primary# threat#for#26#species,#invasive#species#was#identified#as#the#primary#threat#for#19#species,# and#pollution#was#listed#as#the#primary#threat#for#15#species.##

3.2#Objective#Method#for#Calculating#Locations#

# The#number#of#locations#reported#in#the#COSEWIC#reports#was#often#larger#than#the# number#of#locations#calculated#using#the#objective#method#developed#in#this#study,# regardless#of#the#scale#of#threat#(Figures#13#and#14).#When#based#on#in_stream#threats,#11# (out#of#19)#fish#species#had#a#larger#number#of#locations#listed#in#their#COSEWIC# assessment#report#than#the#number#of#locations#calculated#using#in_stream#threat#buffers#of# any#scale.#Silver#Chub#is#not#included#in#any#in_stream#threat#analyses#because#it#is#only# found#in#the#Great#Lakes.#Compared#to#the#number#of#locations#listed#in#their#COSEWIC# assessment#report,#8#fish#species#had#a#smaller#number#of#locations#based#on#a#10km#threat# buffer;#6#fish#species#had#a#smaller#number#of#locations#based#on#a#50km#threat#buffer;#and,# 4#fish#species#had#a#smaller#number#of#locations#based#on#100km#and#200km#threat#buffers.### When#analyzing#landscape#threats,#15#(out#of#20)#fish#species#had#a#larger#number#of# locations#listed#in#their#COSEWIC#assessment#report#than#the#number#of#locations#based#on# any#buffer#scale.#Conversely,#5#fish#species#had#fewer#locations#listed#in#their#COSEWIC# assessment#report#than#the#number#of#locations#based#on#a#10km#threat#buffer.#The# number#of#locations#listed#in#the#COSEWIC#assessment#reports#was#never#less#than#number# of#locations#based#on#50km,#100km,#and#200km#threat#buffers.##

# Number#of#locations#based#on#the#same#size#buffer#for#in_stream#and#landscape# threats#resulted#in#a#different#number#of#locations#for#each#species#(Figure#15).#Number#of# locations#calculated#when#using#a#10km#in_stream#threat#buffer#was#always#greater#than# the#number#of#locations#calculated#using#a#10km#landscape#threat#buffer#for#each#fish##

Figure%13.%%COSEWICWreported%locations%and%the%number%of%locations%calculated%using%10km,% 50km,%100km,%and%200km%inWstream%threat%buffers%(a)%and%landscape%threat%buffers%(b)%for%20% atWrisk%freshwater%fish%species%in%Ontario.%The%number%of%locations%reported%in%the%COSEWIC% reports%was%often%larger%than%the%number%of%locations%calculated%using%the%proposed%objective% method.% 25

Figure%14.%Number%of%locations%calculated%when%using%10km%(diamonds),%50km%(squares),%100km% (triangles),%and%200km%(crosses)%inWstream%threat%buffers%plotted%against%COSEWICWreported%locations% for%20%atWrisk%freshwater%species%in%Ontario%(a).%Number%of%locations%calculated%when%using%10km% (diamonds),%50km%(squares),%100km%(triangles),%and%200km%(crosses)%landscape%threat%buffers%plotted% against%COSEWICWreported%locations%for%20%atWrisk%freshwater%species%in%Ontario%(b).%Diagonal%line% represents%1:1%relationship.%

species#(r#=#0.6957,#Figure#15a);#results#were#similar#when#comparing#50km#in_stream#and# landscape#threat#buffers#(r#=#0.5964,#Figure#15b),#100km#in_stream#and#landscape#threat# buffers#(r=#0.0353,#Figure#15c),#and#200km#in_stream#and#landscape#threat#buffers#(r#=#0,# Figure#15d).#Number#of#locations#decreased#quickly#with#an#increase#in#buffer#size#of#a# landscape#threat#(Figure#13a);#whereas,#number#of#locations#decreased#more#slowly#with# the#same#increase#in#buffer#size#of#an#in_stream#threat#(Figure#13b).##

(

a) b)

c) d)

Figure%15.%Plotted%number%of%locations%calculated%for%inWstream%and%landscape%threats%using%a% 10km%threat%buffer%(a),%50km%threat%buffer%(b),%100km%threat%buffer%(c),%and%200km%threat% buffer%(d)%for%20%atWrisk%freshwater%fish%species%in%Ontario.%%Diagonal%line%represents%1:1% relationship.%Number%of%locations%based%on%the%same%size%buffer%for%inWstream%and%landscape% threats%resulted%in%a%different%number%of%locations%for%each%species.%#

(

4.(Discussion((

(

Review#of#the#COSEWIC#assessment#reports#revealed#the#most#frequently#used# criterion#for#listing#freshwater#fishes#under#Endangered#and#Threatened#categories#was# Criterion#B,#which#includes#number#of#locations.#However,#many#species#had#a#number#of# locations#that#did#not#fall#within#the#location#range#of#its#conservation#status.#This#finding# could#be#because#numbers#of#locations#were#not#used#in#the#assessment#or#that#number#of# locations#was#incorrectly#calculated#or#used#in#the#assessment.#Review#of#the#COSEWIC# assessment#reports#also#showed#inconsistencies#in#the#method#used#by#the#authors#to# calculate#locations.#Methods#ranged#from#counting#the#number#of#waterbodies#where#the# species#was#present#to#estimating#the#total#number#of#populations#for#the#species#(Figure# 11).#In#comparing#the#COSEWIC#number#of#locations#to#the#number#of#locations#calculated# in#this#study,#it#was#evident#that#COSEWIC#assessment#reports#often#overestimated#the# number#of#locations#for#freshwater#fish#species.#Furthermore,#incorporation#of#scale#and# type#of#threat#(i.e.#in_stream,#landscape)#were#the#main#influences#on#location#size#and# abundance#(Figures#13#and#14).#

4.1#Shortcomings#of#the#existing#method#

# The#current#method#of#calculating#locations#may#have#been#used#subjectively#due#to# the#ambiguity#surrounding#the#term.#The#review#of#COSEWIC#assessment#reports#for# freshwater#fishes#showed#inconsistencies#with#the#methods#used#by#authors#to#calculate# locations.#The#number#of#locations#has#been#based#on#number#of#populations,#number#of# spawning#and#overwintering#sites,#and#waterbodies#(e.g.#streams,#lakes).#These#methods# are#inconsistent#with#the#COSEWIC#(and#IUCN)#definition#of#location.#Reports#were#defining# locations#as#geographically#or#ecologically#distinct#areas#(IUCN#2010);#however,#the#size#of# the#locations#was#not#explicitly#dependent#on#the#area#covered#by#the#threatening#event.# Reports#were#also#not#clear#on#how#distribution#was#to#be#inferred.#Another#concern#with# the#current#method#is#the#apparent#mismatch#between#the#number#of#locations#and#the# 29

critical#threshold#of#a#species#threat#category.##A#number#of#COSEWIC_reported#locations# surpassed#the#critical#threshold#for#species#classified#as#Endangered#(≤#5)#or#Threatened#(≤# 10).#Meanwhile,#the#majority#of#species#classified#as#Special#Concern#had#well#below#10# locations.#In#some#cases,#this#mismatch#may#be#explained#by#the#use#of#other#Criteria,#alone# or#with#Criterion#B,#for#species#designation.#A#standardized#method#of#calculating#the# number#of#locations#would#ensure#an#easy,#quantitative#measurement#of#locations#that# avoids#subjective#opinion#(IUCN#Standards#and#Petitions#Working#Group#2010).#

4.2#Proposed#standardized#method#

I#developed#an#objective#method#to#calculate#number#of#locations#based#on#the# COSEWIC#definition#of#location#that#incorporates#both#the#nature#and#scale#of#the#most# serious#plausible#threat#that#would#rapidly#affect#a#species#across#its#inferred#distribution.# The#proposed#method#uses#MAVP#to#infer#a#species#distribution#and#buffers#representing# the#scale#of#threat#to#define#locations.###

4.2.1#Inferring#distribution##

# The#minimum#area#for#a#viable#population#is#a#practical#biological#solution#to#infer# distribution#in#the#absence#of#detailed#distribution#data#or#species_specific#distribution# models.#The#benefit#of#using#MAVP#to#infer#distribution#is#because#known#points#of# occurrence#from#sampling#locations#underrepresent#the#actual#distribution#of#the#species#in# question.#The#weakness#of#using#MAVP#to#infer#distribution#is#that#it#assumes#each# distribution#point#represents#a#viable#population#(Velez_Espino#et.#al#2008a,#2008b,#2008c),# which#may#not#be#valid#especially#for#imperiled#species,#often#resulting#in#an# overestimation#of#the#actual#area#used#by#the#species.#

# Other#improvements#to#the#proposed#method#would#be#to#use#stream#width#for# individual#points#in#buffering#the#inferred#distribution#using#MAVP.#Applying#the# appropriate#length#of#the#buffer#to#each#sample#point,#based#on#the#width#of#the#stream#

where#the#sample#points#were#collected,#would#result#in#a#more#accurate#representation#of# the#area#belonging#to#the#inferred#distribution.#Ideally,#distributions#would#be#inferred# using#species_specific#distribution#models#(Zorn#et#al.#2002;#Mckenna#and#Johnson#2011);# however,#such#models#do#not#exist#for#Canadian#freshwater#fishes.#

4.2.2.#Threat#buffers#

Buffering#the#scale#of#threat#to#the#inferred#distribution#was#fundamental#in# determining#the#size#of#a#location.#I#could#not#find#any#empirical#data#in#the#literature#on# the#range#of#scales#of#threats#to#freshwater#fishes;#therefore,#I#used#a#hypothetical#range#of# scales#to#determine#the#sensitivity#of#number#of#locations#to#scale#of#threat.#Currently,#the# process#of#identifying#the#most#serious#plausible#threat#is#not#objective.#COSEWIC#currently# assesses#most#serious#plausible#threat#based#on#expert#opinion.#The#threat#calculator# developed#by#the#IUCN#and#recently#adopted#by#COSEWIC,#could#be#modified#to#more# objectively#identify#the#most#serious#plausible#threat#to#a#species.#Currently,#the#calculator# ranks#the#impact#of#different#threats#from#Very#High#to#Low#based#on#scope#values#(i.e.# pervasive,#large,#restricted,#small)#and#severity#values#(i.e.#extreme,#serious,#moderate,# slight)#assessed#by#a#group#of#experts,#but#does#not#identify#if#the#threat#will#rapidly#affect# the#species#across#its#range#or#assign#an#explicit#spatial#scale#to#the#threat,#both#required#to# define#locations.#Modifying#the#threat#calculator#to#automatically#assign#the#temporal#and# spatial#scales#of#the#threats#would#further#make#the#proposed#method#of#calculating# locations#more#objective.####

The#proposed#method#to#calculate#the#number#of#locations#could#be#improved#by# incorporating#barriers#to,#and#the#effects#of#water#flow#direction#on,#spread#of#in_stream# threats.#Certain#in_stream#threats,#such#as#pollutants#(e.g.#chemical#spill)#and#certain# invasive#species#(e.g.#non_mobile#organisms#such#as#plants),#are#unable#to#spread#upstream# of#a#particular#point#due#to#flow#direction#or#upstream#barriers.#Once#the#most#plausible# threat#is#identified#for#a#species,#it#is#important#to#determine#its#ability#to#spread#in#order#to# determine#optimal#placement#of#the#buffer#representing#the#extent#of#its#impact.#Including# barriers#to#spread,#when#estimating#the#threat#buffer,#would#increase#the#number#of#

locations#for#a#given#species.#The#spread#of#a#landscape#threat#is#often#dependent#on# meteorological#conditions.#The#circular#buffers#proposed#in#this#method,#representing#the# scale#of#landscape#threats,#assume#equal#spread#of#the#threat#in#all#directions#of#the#sample# point.#The#spread,#in#some#cases,#may#be#more#oriented#to#one#direction#as#opposed#to#the# other.#Changing#the#placement#and#possibly#the#shape#or#symmetry#of#the#buffer#(e.g.#oval),# may#improve#location#calculations#when#faced#with#a#landscape#threat.##

4.3#Summary#

The#number#of#locations#was#shown#to#be#dependent#on#the#scale#of#the#primary# threat.#As#expected,#the#number#of#locations#decreased#as#the#scale#of#threat#increased#for# both#in_stream#and#landscape#threats.#However,#the#rate#at#which#the#number#of#locations# decreased#was#faster#for#landscape#threats#than#for#in_stream#threats.#The#linear#buffer# used#to#represent#the#scale#of#an#in_stream#threat#is#restricted#to#the#stream#network#and,# therefore,#does#not#cover#as#large#an#area#as#the#circular#buffer#used#to#represent#landscape# threats.##The#total#area#of#an#in_stream#buffer#was#also#limited#by#barriers#to#dispersal,#such# as#the#boundary#of#a#tertiary#watershed.#For#in_stream#threats,#the#minimum#number#of# locations#will#always#equal#to#the#number#of#watersheds#in#which#the#species#occurs.# Meanwhile,#circular#buffers#representing#landscape#threats#were#not#restricted#by#any# boundary#and#could#encompass#occurrences#in#more#than#watershed#as#a#single#location.##

One#of#my#main#objectives#was#to#develop#a#standardized#method#for#calculating# locations#that#is#suitable#for#aquatic#environments#and#can#be#used#to#facilitate#the#status# assessment#of#freshwater#fishes.#The#proposed#method#uses#simple#GIS#procedures#to#infer# species#distributions#based#on#basic#life_history#data#(i.e.#average#body#size,#average#body# weight)#and#to#calculate#number#of#locations.#This#proposed#method#could#also#be#used#for# terrestrial#and#avian#species#given#the#knowledge#of#the#species#distribution,#life_history# traits,#threats,#and#the#dispersal#pattern.#Although#the#MAVP#calculations#used#in#this#study# were#for#fishes,#other#calculations#of#MAVP#for#terrestrial#and#avian#species#are#available#in# the#literature#(Goldingay#and#Possingham#1994;#Grim#and#Stroch#2000;#Brito#and#De#Souza# Lima#Figueiredo#2003;#Brito#and#Grelle#2006).##The#shape#of#the#buffers#representing#the#

inferred#distribution#and#scale#of#threat#could#be#adapted#to#better#represent#the# distribution#of#other#species.##

Finally,#estimating#the#number#of#locations#may#be#biased#by#the#sampling#effort# undertaken#to#detect#the#species.#Certain#species#receive#more#conservation#attention#than# others,#typically#resulting#in#greater#sampling#effort#and#documented#occurrences#(Cheng# 2013).#For#example,#extensive#surveys#have#been#undertaken#in#an#effort#of#protect#and# recover#Redside#Dace,#resulting#in#a#high#number#of#sample#points#available#for#this#species# (1313#sample#points)#(Cheng#2013).###

# #

5.#Conclusions#

This#study#reviewed#the#calculation#of#number#of#locations#used#by#COSEWIC#to# assess#the#conservation#status#for#freshwater#fishes.##The#number#of#locations#listed#in# COSEWIC#assessment#reports#often#appeared#to#be#subjective#in#their#estimation,#and#did# not#explicitly#identify#and#incorporate#the#scale#of#the#most#serious#plausible#threat.#This# often#resulted#in#an#overestimation#of#the#number#of#locations.#For#the#freshwater#species# that#are#mainly#restricted#to#linear#habitats,#the#standardized#method#proposed#in#this# study#is#more#likely#to#accurately#calculate#number#of#locations#based#on#the#COSEWIC# definition.#This#standardized#method#for#calculating#locations#is#not#restricted#to# freshwater#fishes#and#can#be#modified#for#all#types#of#species.#Refining#critical#thresholds# used#in#Criterion#B#(EO,#AO,#and#number#locations)#that#are#biologically#meaningful#for# different#groups#of#species#would#be#the#next#step#for#future#studies.#Together,#with#the# development#of#standardized#methods#to#calculate#Area#of#Occupancy#(Cheng#2013),# Criterion#B#of#the#COSEWIC#Guidelines#will#be#more#effective#in#correctly#assessing#the# conservation#status#of#species.#

(

References.

Akcakaya,%H.,%Ferson,%S.,%Burgman,%M.,%Keith,%D.,%Mace,%G.,%and%Todd,%C.%2000.%Making% consistent%IUCN%classifications%under%uncertainty.%Conservation%Biology.%14:%1001W1013%

Brito,%D.,%and%Grelle,%C.%E.%V.%2006.%Estimating%Minimum%Area%of%Suitable%Habitat%and%Viable% Population%Size%for%the%Northern%Muriqui%(Brachyteles'hypoxanthus).%Biodiversity%and% Conservation.%15:%4197W4210%

Brito,%D.,%and%De%Souza%Lima%Figueiredo,%M.%2003.%Minimum%viable%population%and%conservation% status%of%the%Atlantic%Forest%spiny%rat%Trinomys'eliasi.%Biological%Conservation.%112:%153W 158%%

Cardoso,%P.,%Borges,%P.%A.%V.,%Triantis,%K.%A.,%Ferrández,%M.%A.%and%Martín,%J.%L.%2011.%Adapting%the% IUCN%Red%List%criteria%for%invertebrates.%Biological%Conservation%144:%2432–2440%%

Cheng,%J.%2013.%Spatial%Criteria%used%in%IUCN%Assessment%Overestimate%Area%of%Occupancy%for% Freshwater%Taxa.%MSc.%Thesis.%University%of%Toronto.%Downloadable%from% http://hdl.handle.net/1807/42731%

Chu,%C.,%Minns,%C.%K.,%and%Mandrak,%N.%E.%2003.%Comparative%regional%assessment%of%factors% impacting%freshwater%fish%biodiversity%in%Canada.%Canadian%Journal%of%Fisheries%and%Aquatic% Sciences.%60:%624W634%

COSEWIC.%2012.%COSEWIC’s%Assessment%Process%and%Criteria:%Overview%of%the%COSEWIC% Process.%Downloadable%from% http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/pdf/Assessment_process_and_criteria_e.pdf%

COSEWIC.%2013.%Instructions%for%the%preparation%of%COSEWIC%status%reports.%Downloadable% from%http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/pdf/Instructions_e.pdf%%

Duncan,%J.%R.,%and%Lockwood,%J.%L.%2001.%Extinction%in%a%field%of%bullets:%a%search%for%causes%in%the% decline%of%the%world’s%freshwater%fishes.%Biological%Conservation%102:%97–105%

ESRI%2011.%ArcGIS%Desktop:%Release%10.2.%Redlands,%CA:%Environmental%Systems%Research% Institute.%

Gaston,%K.%2000.%Abundance–occupancy%relationships.%Journal%of%Applied%Ecology.%37:%39–59%%

Gaston,%K.%J.,%and%Fuller,%R.%A.%2009.%The%sizes%of%species’%geographic%ranges.%Journal%of%Applied% Ecology.%46:%1–9%

Goldingay,%R.,%and%Possingham,%H.%1994.%Area%requirements%for%viable%populations%of%the% australian%gliding%marsupial%Petaurus'australis.%Biological%Conservation.%73:%161W167%

Grim,%V.%and%Storch,%I.%2000.%Minimum%viable%population%size%of%capercaillie%Tetrao'urogallus%:% results%from%a%stochastic%model.%Wildlife%Biology.%6:%219W225%

Hitt,%N.,%and%Angermeier,%P.%2008.%Evidence%for%fish%dispersal%from%spatial%analysis%of%stream% network%topology.%Journal%of%the%North%American%Benthological%Society.%27:%304W320%

Hoffmann%M.,%C.%HiltonWTaylor,%A.%Angulo,%M.%Böhm,%T.%M.%Brooks,%S.%H.%M.%Butchart,%K.%E.% Carpenter,%J.%Chanson,%B.%Collen,%N.%A.%Cox,%W.%R.%T.%Darwall,%N.%K.%Dulvy,%L.%R.%Harrison,%V.% Katariya,%C.%M.%Pollock,%S.%Quader,%N.%I.%Richman,%A.%S.%L.%Rodrigues,%M.%F.%Tognelli,%J.WC.%Vié,% J.%M.%Aguiar,%D.%J.%Allen,%G.%R.%Allen,%G.%Amori,%N.%B.%Ananjeva,%F.%Andreone,%P.%Andrew,%A.%L.% Aquino%Ortiz,%J.%E.%M.%Baillie,%R.%Baldi,%B.%D.%Bell,%S.%D.%Biju,%J.%P.%Bird,%P.%BlackWDecima,%J.%J.% Blanc,%F.%Bolaños,%W.%BolivarWG,%I.%J.%Burfield,%J.%A.%Burton,%D.%R.%Capper,%F.%Castro,%G.%Catullo,% R.%D.%Cavanagh,%A.%Channing,%N.%L.%Chao,%A.%M.%Chenery,%F.%Chiozza,%V.%Clausnitzer,%N.%J.% Collar,%L.%C.%Collett,%B.%B.%Collette,%C.%F.%Cortez%Fernandez,%M.%T.%Craig,%M.%J.%Crosby,%N.% Cumberlidge,%A.%Cuttelod,%A.%E.%Derocher,%A.%C.%Diesmos,%J.%S.%Donaldson,%J.%W.%Duckworth,% G.%Dutson,%S.%K.%Dutta,%R.%H.%Emslie,%A.%Farjon,%S.%Fowler,%J.%Freyhof,%D.%L.%Garshelis,%J.% Gerlach,%D.%J.%Gower,%T.%D.%Grant,%G.%A.%Hammerson,%R.%B.%Harris,%L.%R.%Heaney,%S.%B.%Hedges,% J.WM.%Hero,%B.%Hughes,%S.%A.%Hussain,%J.%Icochea%M,%R.%F.%Inger,%N.%Ishii,%D.%T.%Iskandar,%R.%K.%B.% Jenkins,%Y.%Kaneko,%M.%Kottelat,%K.%M.%Kovacs,%S.%L.%Kuzmin,%E.%La%Marca,%J.%F.%Lamoreux,%M.% W.%N.%Lau,%E.%O.%Lavilla,%K.%Leus,%R.%L.%Lewison,%G.%Lichtenstein,%S.%R.%Livingstone,%V.% Lukoschek,%D.%P.%Mallon,%P.%J.%K.%Mcgowan,%A.%Mcivor,%P.%D.%Moehlman,%S.%Molur,%A.%Muñoz% Alonso,%J.%A%Musick,%K.%Nowell,%R.%A.%Nussbaum,%W.%Olech,%N.%L.%Orlov,%T.%J.%Papenfuss,%G.% ParraWOlea,%W.%F.%Perrin,%B.%A.%Polidoro,%M.%Pourkazemi,%P.%A.%Racey,%J.%S.%Ragle,%M.%Ram,%G.% Rathbun,%R.%P.%Reynolds,%A.%G.%J.%Rhodin,%S.%J.%Richards,%L.%O.%Rodríguez,%S.%R.%Ron,%C.% Rondinini,%A.%B.%Rylands,%Y.%Sadovy%de%Mitcheson,%J.%C.%Sanciangco,%K.%L.%Sanders,%G.%SantosW Barrera,%J.%Schipper,%C.%SelfWSullivan,%Y.%Shi,%A.%Shoemaker,%F.%T.%Short,%C.%SilleroWZubiri,%D.%L.% Silvano,%K.%G.%Smith,%A.%T.%Smith,%J.%Snoeks,%A.%J.%Stattersfield,%A.%J.%Symes,%A.%B.%Taber,%B.%K.% Talukdar,%H.%J.%Temple,%R.%Timmins,%J.%A.%Tobias,%K.%Tsytsulina,%D.%Tweddle,%C.%Ubeda,%S.%V% Valenti,%P.%P.%Van%Dijk,%L.%M.%Veiga,%A.%Veloso,%D.%C.%Wege,%M.%Wilkinson,%E.%A.%Williamson,%F.% Xie,%B.%E.%Young,%H.%R.%Akçakaya,%L.%Bennun,%T.%M.%Blackburn,%L.%Boitani,%H.%T.%Dublin,%G.%A.%B.% Da%Fonseca,%C.%Gascon,%T.%E.%Lacher,%G.%M.%Mace,%S.%A.%Mainka,%J.%A.%mcneely,%R.%A.% Mittermeier,%G.%M.%Reid,%J.%P.%Rodriguez,%A.%A.%Rosenberg,%M.%J.%Samways,%J.%Smart,%B.%A.% Stein,%and%S.%N.%Stuart.%2010.%The%impact%of%conservation%on%the%status%of%the%world’s% vertebrates.%Science.%330:%1503–1509%

Holm,%E.,%Mandrak,%N.%E.,%and%Burridge,%M.%E.%2010.%The%ROM%Field%Guide%to%Freshwater%Fishes% of%Ontario,%Second%Edition.%Altona:%Friesens%Printers.%%

IUCN%Standards%and%Petitions%Working%Group.%2008.%Guidelines%for%Using%the%IUCN%Red%List% Categories%and%Criteria.%Version%7.0.%Prepared%by%the%Standards%and%Petitions%Working% Group%of%the%IUCN%SSC%Biodiversity%Assessments%SubWCommittee%in%August%2008.% Downloadable%from% http://intranet.iucn.org/webfiles/doc/SSC/RedList/RedListGuidelines.pdf% 35

%IUCN%Standards%and%Petitions%Subcommittee.%2010.%Guidelines%for%Using%the%IUCN%Red%List% Categories%and%Criteria.%Version%8.1.%Prepared%by%the%Standards%and%Petitions% Subcommittee%in%March%2010.%Downloadable%from% http://intranet.iucn.org/webfiles/doc/SSC/RedList/RedListGuidelines.pdf%

IUCN%2012.The%IUCN%Red%List%of%Threatened%Species.%Version%2012.2.% .%Downloaded%on%17%October%2013%

Jelks,%H.,%Walsh,%S.,%Burkhead,%N.,%ContrerasWBalderass,%S.,%DiazWPardo,%E.,%Hendrickson,%D.,% Lyons,%J.%Mandrak,%N.,%McCormick,%F.,%Nelson,%J.,%Platania,%S.,%Porter,%B.,%Renaud,%C.% SchmitterWSoto,%J.,%Warren,%T.,%and%Warren,%M.%2008.%Conservation%status%of%imperiled% North%American%freshwater%and%diadromous%fishes.%Fisheries..33:%372W407%

Lukey,%J.%R.,%and%Crawford,%S.%S.%2009.%Consistency%of%COSEWIC%species%at%risk%designations:% freshwater%fishes%as%a%case%study.%Canadian%Journal%of%Fisheries%and%Aquatic%Sciences%66:% 959–971%

Mace,%G.%M.%1994.%Classifying%threatened%species:%means%and%ends.%Philosophical%Transactions:% Biological%Sciences.%344:%91–97%

MartínWLópez,%B.,%González%J.%A.,%and%Montes,%C.%2011.%The%pitfallWtrap%of%species%conservation% priority%setting.%Biodiversity%and%Conservation%20:%663–682%

Mckenna,%J.E.%and%Johnson,%J.H.%2011.%Landscape%models%of%Brook%Trout%abundance%and% distribution%in%lotic%habitat%with%field%validation.%North%American%Journal%of%Fisheries% Management.%31:%742W756%

Reed,%D.H.,%and%Bryant,%E.H.%2000.%Experimental%test%of%minimum%viable%population%size.%Animal% Conservation.%3:%7–14.%%

Reed,%D.H.,%O’Grady,%J.J.,%Brook,%B.W.,%Ballou,%J.D.,%and%Frankham,%R.%2003.%Estimates%of% minimum%viable%population%sizes%for%vertebrates%and%factors%influencing%those%estimates.% Biological%Conservation.%113:%23–34.%%

Ricciardi,%A.,%and%Rasmussen,%J.%B.%1999.%Extinction%rates%of%North%American%freshwater%fauna.% Conservation%Biology%13:%1220–1222.%%

Schuler,%A.%M.,%and%Hayes%D.%B.%2011.%Minimum%viable%population%size%for%lake%sturgeon% (Acipenser'fulvenscens)%using%and%individual%based%model%of%demographics%and%genetics.% Canadian%Journal%of%Fish%Aquatic%Science.%68:%62W73%

VelezWEspino,%L.,%and%Koops,%M.%2008a.%Recovery%Potential%Assessment%for%Lake%Sturgeon%in% Canadian%Designatable%Units.%North%American%Journal%of%Fisheries%Management.%29:%1065W 1090%

VelezWEspino,%L.%and%Koops,%M.%2008b.%Recovery%target%and%longWterm%projections%for%the%Black% Redhorse%(Moxostoma'duquesnei).%DFO%Canadian%Science%Advisory%Secretariat.%Science% Research%Document%2008/006%%

VelezWEspino,%L.%and%Koops,%M.%2008c.%Recovery%potential%assessment%of%redside%dace% (Clinostomus'elongatus)%in%Canada.%DFO%Canadian%Science%Advisory%Secretariat.%Science% Research%Document%2008/005%

Zorn,%T.G.,%Seelbach,%P.W.,%and%Wiley,%M.J.%2002.%Distirbution%of%stream%fishes%and%their% relationship%to%stream%size%and%hydrology%in%Michigan’s%lower%peninsula.%Transactions%of% the%American%Fisheries%Society.%131:%70W85.%%

Appendices.

Appendix(1.#Definition#of#Location#as#stated#in#the#Guidelines#for#Using#the#IUCN#Red#List# Categories#and#Criteria#(IUCN#Standards#and#Petitions#Working#Group#2010).##

Appendix 2. !COSEWIC!designated!conservation!status!reported!primary!threat,!reported!number!of!locations,!and!reported! reason!for!designation!identified!for!86!freshwater!fish!species!at!risk!in!Canada.

COSEWIC( Criteria(used(for( Primary( Scientific(name(( Common(Name( Status( Latest(Report( designation( Threat( Locations( Method(for(calculating(locations(( 1 location, distributed over 3 Coregonus)huntsman) Atlantic(Whitefish( EN( 2011( Criteria(B( HL( 1 interconnected lakes ) Salvelinus)fontinalis) timagamiensis) Aurora(Trout( EN( 2000( N/A( P( 12 12 populations

Single population. 3 locations in Moxostoma)hubbsi) Copper(Redhorse( EN( 2004( Criteria(A(and(B( HL/P( 3 Southern Quebec ) ) Enos(Lake(Benthic(Threespine( Single lake in South Coastal British Gasterosteus)aculeatus) Stickleback( EN( 2012( Criteria(A,(B,(C( HL/I/CSD( 1 Columbia ) ) Enos(Lake(Limnetic(Threespine( Single lake in South Coastal British Gasterosteus)aculeatus) Stickleback( EN( 2012( Criteria(A,(B,(C(( HL/I/CSD( 1 Columbia ) Erimyzon)sucetta) Lake(Chubsucker( EN( 2008( Criteria(B( HL( 11 11 populations ) ) Lake(Sturgeon((Nelson(River( Acipenser)fulvescens) populations)( EN( 2006( Criteria(A( H( <5 6 populations, 1 extirpated ) ) Lake(Sturgeon((Saskatchewan( Acipenser)fulvescens) River(populations)( EN( 2006( Criteria(A(( H( 4 4 populations ) ) Lake(Sturgeon((RedOAssiniboine( ) Rivers(O(Lake(Winnipeg( Acipenser)fulvescens) populations)( EN( 2006( Criteria(A(and(C( H( <5 5 populations ) ) Lake(Sturgeon((Winnipeg(River(O( Acipenser)fulvescens) English(River(populations)( EN( 2006( Criteria(A(( H( 8 8 populations ) ( ) ( ( ( ( ( ) ( ( ( ( ( ) ( ( ( ( (

Acipenser)fulvescens) Lake(Sturgeon((Western(Hudson( EN( 2006( Criteria(A(and(C( H( 3 3 populations Bay(populations)( ( ) ( ) Misty(Lake(Lentic(Threespine( Gasterosteus)aculeatus) Stickleback( EN( 2007( Criteria(A( I( 1 1 populations in Misty Lake ) ) Misty(Lake(Lotic(Threespine( Gasterosteus)aculeatus) Stickleback( EN( 2007( Criteria(A( I( 1 1 population ) Rhinichthys)cataractae)ssp) Nooksack(Dace( EN( 2007( Criteria(B( HL( 4 4 populations ) Noturus)stigmosus) Northern(Madtom( EN( 2012( Criteria(B( P( 4 5 populations ) ) Paxton(Lake(Benthic(Threespine( Gasterosteus)aculeatus) Stickleback( EN( 2010( Criteria(A(( HL/I( 1 1 small lake in coastal BC ) ) Paxton(Lake(Limnetic(Threespine( Gasterosteus)aculeatus) Stickleback( EN( 2010( Criteria(A( HL/I( 1 1 small lake in coastal BC ) Clinostomus)elongatus) Redside(Dace( EN( 2007( Criteria(B( HL/P( 14-19 14-19 drainages and streams ) Coregonus)reighardi) Shortnose(Cisco( EN( 2005( Criteria(D( H( 0 0 populations ) ) Silver(Chub(O(Great(Lakes(O(Upper( Macrhybopsis)storeriana) St.(Lawrence(populations( EN( 2012( Criteria(A(and(B( HL/P( 3 3 lakes ) Rhinichthys)osculus) Speckled(Dace( EN( 2006( Criteria(B( HL/ND( 3 3 rivers ) Coregonus)sp.) Spring(Cisco( EN( 2009( Criteria(A(and(B( I( 1 1 population ) ) Striped(Bass((Bay(of(Fundy( Shubenacadie River, Saint John Morone)saxatilis) population)( EN( 2012( Criteria(B( HL( 1-2L River (uncertain if reproducing) ) ) Striped(Bass((St.(Lawrence(River( Morone)saxatilis) population)( EN( 2012( Criteria(B( HL( 1 Lake Saint-Pierre ) ) Vananda(Creek(Benthic( Gasterosteus)aculeatus) Threespine(Stickleback( EN( 2010( Criteria(A( HL/I( 1 1 population in Paxton Lake ( ) ( ( ( ( ( ) Vananda(Creek(Limnetic( ( ( ( ( Gasterosteus)aculeatus) Threespine(Stickleback( EN( 2010( Criteria(A( HL/I( 1 1 population in Paxton lake

( ) ( ( ( ( ( ) Western(Brook(Lamprey( ( ( ( ( Found in 1 stream on Eastern Lampetra)richardsoni) (Morrison(Creek(population)( EN( 2010( Criteria(B( HL( 1 Vancouver Island

Restricted to Milk River in Southern Hybognathus)argyritis) Western(Silvery(Minnow( EN( 2008( Criteria(B( HL/ND( 1 or 2 Alberta ) ) White(Sturgeon(O(Upper( Criteria(A,(C,( Acipenser)transmontanus) Kootenay(River(population( EN( 2012( and(E( HL/H( 1-2L Spawning and overwintering sites ) ) White(Sturgeon(O(Upper(Fraser( Acipenser)transmontanus) River(population( EN( 2012( Criteria(C( HL/H( 1-12L 1-12 spawning sites ) ) White(Sturgeon(O(Upper( Criteria(A,(C,( Acipenser)transmontanus) Columbia(River(population( EN( 2012( and(E( HL/H( 5 1 spawning site, 4 overwintering sites ) Anguilla)rostrata) American(Eel( TH( 2012( Criteria(A( HL/H( Unknown( N/A( ) ) Atlantic(Sturgeon((St(Lawrence( 1 population middle St. Lawrence Acipenser)oxyrinchus) population)( TH( 2011( Criteria(D( H( 1 River ) ) Atlantic(Sturgeon((Maritime( Acipenser)oxyrinchus) population)( TH( 2011( Criteria(D( H( 1 1 population St. John River ) Moxostoma)duquesnei) Black(Redhorse( TH( 2005( Criteria(D( HL/P( 15 N/A ) ) Bull(Trout((Saskatchewan(O( Salvelinus)confluentus) Nelson(Rivers(populations)( TH( 2012( Criteria(A( HL/H/CSD( >36 36 core areas ) Notropis)percobromus) Carmine(Shiner( TH( 2006( Criteria(D( HL( 5 4 rivers, 1 channel

Captured at 55 separate locations in Percina)copelandi) Channel(Darter( TH( 2002( N/A( HL( 55 23 waterbodies ) ) Coastrange(Sculpin((Cultus( Cottus)aleuticus) population)( TH( 2010( Criteria(D( HL/I( 1 1 population ) ( ) Eastern(Sand(Darter((Ontario( ( ( ( ( Ammocrypta)pellucida) population)( TH( 2009( Criteria(B( HL/P( 7 7 populations ) ( ) ( ( ( ( ( ) ( ( ( ( (

Ammocrypta)pellucida) Eastern(Sand(Darter((Quebec( TH( 2009( Criteria(B( HL/P( 10-15L 10-15 populations population)( ( ) ( ( ( ( ( ) Lake(Sturgeon((Great(Lakes(O( ( ( ( ( Acipenser)fulvescens) Upper(St.(Lawrence(populations)( TH( 2006( Criteria(A( H( <70 70 populations ) ) Mountain(Sucker((Milk(River( Catostomus)platyrhynchus) populations)( TH( 2010( Criteria(B( HL( 8 8 populations

2 locations based on tributary- specific threats, 1 based on climate Hybognathus)placitus) Plains(Minnow( TH( 2012( Criteria(D( C/HD( 1-2L change projection ) Opsopoeodus)emiliae) Pugnose(Minnow( TH( 2012( Criteria(B(( HL( 9 or 10 River, streams, creeks, 1 lake ) Notropis)anogenus) Pugnose(Shiner( TH( 2013( N/A( HL( 16 16 waterbodies ) ) Rainbow(Smelt((Lake(Utopia( Spawn in 3 streams within one Osmerus)mordax) SmallObodied(population)( TH( 2008( Criteria(D( HL/I/CSD( 3 watershed ) ) Rainbow(Smelt((Lake(Utopia( Spawn in 3 streams within one Osmerus)mordax) LargeObodied(population)( TH( 2008( Criteria(D( HL/I/CSD( 3 watershed ) ) Rocky(Mountain(Sculpin( Cottus)sp.) (Eastslope(populations)( TH( 2005( Criteria(D( HL/ND( 3 Rivers and streams ) ) 11 watersheds. 3 watersheds have Catostomus)catostomus) Salish(Sucker( TH( 2012( Criteria(D( HL/P( 14 two locations ) Coregonus)zenithicus) Shortjaw(Cisco( TH( 2003( N/A( I/H( 20-21 N/A ) Notropis)photogenis) Silver(Shiner( TH( 2011( Criteria(B( HL/P( 6 Found in 5 rivers and 1 creek ) ) Located in 3 coastal wetlands in lake Lepisosteus)oculatus) Spotted(Gar( TH( 2005( Criteria(D(( HL( 3 Erie ) ) Min of 6 populations. Population Rhinichthys)umatilla) Umatilla(Dace( TH( 2010( Criteria(B( HL/ND( 6 structure unknown

) ) Lampetra)macrostoma) Vancouver(Lamprey( TH( 2008( Criteria(D( CSD( 1 1 population

) ( ) Westslope(Cutthroat(Trout( Oncorhynchus)clarkii)lewisi) (Alberta(population)( TH( 2006( Criteria(B(and(C( HL/I/H( 61( 61(named(streams(in(2(river(systems( ) ( ( ( ( ( ) White(Sturgeon(O(Lower(Fraser( ( ( ( ( Acipenser)transmontanus) River(population( TH( 2012( Criteria(B( HL/H( 4-6L 4-6 spawning sites ) ) Banded(Killifish((Newfoundland( Fundulus)diaphanus) population)( SC( 2003( N/A( HL( 7 7 populations ) Coregonus)laurettae) Bering(Cisco( SC( 2004( N/A( HD/HL( 1 N/A ) ( ) Bigmouth(Buffalo((Saskatchewan( Ictiobus)cyprinellus) O(Nelson(River(populations)( SC( 2009( N/A( HL( 3 N/A

Located in 8-10 Rivers, Creeks and Fundulus)notatus) Blackstripe(Topminnow( SC( 2012( N/A( HL/HD( 8-10L Streams

Each location is a separate waterbody. Possibly individual Notropis)bifrenatus) Bridle(Shiner( SC( 2013( N/A( HL/P( 25-26 populations ) ) Bull(Trout((South(Coast(British( Salvelinus)confluentus) Columbia(populations)( SC( 2012( N/A( HL/H/CSD( 5-10L 5-10 core areas ) ) Bull(Trout((Western(Artic( Salvelinus)confluentus) populations)( SC( 2012( N/A( HL/H/CSD( >45 >45 core areas ) ) Charlotte(Unarmoured( Gasterosteus)aculeatus) Threespine(Stickleback( SC( 2013( Criteria(B*( I( 3 Found in 3 lakes ) Cottus)hubbsi) Columbia(Sculpin( SC( 2010( Criteria(B*( HL( 21 21 locations amongst 5 populations ) Exoglossum)maxillingua) Cutlip(Minnow( SC( 2013( Criteria(B*( HL/I( >10 N/A ) ) Deepwater(Sculpin((Great(Lakes(O( ) Western(St.(Lawrence( Myoxocephalus)thompsonii) populations)( SC( 2006( N/A( I( 10 10 lakes

) ) Dolly(Varden((Western(Arctic( Salvelinus)malma)malma) population)( SC( 2010( Criteria(B*( HL/H( 17 N/A

) ( ( ( ( ( Gasterosteus)aculeatus) Giant(Threespine(Stickleback( SC( 2013( Criteria(B*( I( 2 Found in 2 small lakes ) Esox)americanus)vermiculatus) Grass(Pickerel( SC( 2005( Criteria(B*( HL( 10 10 populations ) ( ( ( ( ( Acipenser)medirostris) Green(Sturgeon( SC( 2004( N/A( HL/HD( 2 N/A ) ) Lake(Sturgeon((Rainy(RiverOLake( Acipenser)fulvescens) of(the(Woods(populations)( SC( 2006( N/A( HL/H( 2+ N/A ) ) Lake(Sturgeon((Southern(Hudson( Acipenser)fulvescens) Bay(and(James(Bay(populations)( SC( 2006( N/A( H( >10 N/A ) ) Mountain(Sucker((Pacific( Located in 3 rivers, divided into 9 Catostomus)platyrhynchus) populations)( SC( 2010( N/A( HL( 9 locations ) ) North(Brook(Lamprey((Great( ) Lakes(O(Upper(St.(Lawrence( Ichthyomyzon)fossor) populations)( SC( 2007( N/A( P( 36 36 streams ) Moxostoma)carinatum) River(Redhorse( SC( 2006( Criteria(B*( HL/P( 25 25 sampling points ) ) Rocky(Mountain(Sculpin( Combination of the proximities of 10 Cottus)sp.) (Westslope(populations)( SC( 2010( Criteria(B*( P( 9 waterbodies ) Cottus)confusus) Shorthead(Sculpin( SC( 2010( Criteria(B*( P/HD( 13 13 locations amongst 3 populations

Criteria(B*,(C*,( Restricted to single river system in Acipenser)brevirostrum) Shortnose(Sturgeon( SC( 2005( D*( HL/H( 1 Canada ) ) Silver(Lamprey((Great(Lakes(O( Ichthyomyzon)unicuspis) Upper(St.(Lawrence(populations)( SC( 2011( N/A( PER/HD( 48 41 streams and 7 lakes ) ) Minytrema)melanops) Spotted(Sucker( SC( 2005( N/A( HL( 7 7 populations ) ) Stiped(Bass((Southern(Gulf(of(St.( Single spawning ground in the Morone)saxatilis) Lawrence(population)( SC( 2012( Criteria(B*( H( 1 Miramichi River

Coregonus)kiyi)kiyi) Upper(Great(Lakes(Kiyi( SC( 2005( N/A( H( 0 Occupy 1 large lake, but population

structure is unknown

Lepomis)gulosus) Warmouth( SC( 2005( Criterion(D*( HL( 1O4L( N/A( ) ) Westslope(Cutthroat(Trout( 928 waterbodies plus 301 stocked Oncorhynchus)clarkii)lewisi) (British(Columbia(population)( SC( 2006( N/A( HL/I/H( 928O1229( waterbodies

Habitat(loss(and(degradation( HL( Pollution( P( Alien(and(Invasive(Species(( I( Harvest( H( Natural(Disaster(( ND( Human(Disturbances(( HD( Change(in(native(species(dynamics(( CSD( Persecution(( PER( Climate/Water(temperature(( C(

Appendix 3. Locations!calculated!for!20!freshwater!fish!species!at!risk!in!Ontario!using!buffers!representing!scale!of!inEstream!and! landscape!threats!at!10km,!50km,!100km!and!200km.!

COSEWIC COSEWIC( @reported( 10km/in@ 50km/in@ 100km/in@ 200km/in@ 10km/land 50km/land 100km/lan 200km/lan Common(Name( status( locations( stream( stream( stream( stream( scape( scape( dscape( dscape( Lake( Chubsucker(( EN( 11( 16( 13( 11( 11( 6( 2( 1( 1( ( Northern( Madtom(( EN( 4( 5( 4( 4( 4( 3( 1( 1( 1( ( Pugnose(Shiner(( EN( 16( 22( 18( 16( 15( 10( 4( 2( 1( ( Redside(Dace(( EN( 14(to(19( 23( 17( 17( 17( 8( 1( 1( 1( ( Silver(Chub( EN( 3( N/A( N/A( N/A( N/A( 7( 1( 1( 1( ( Black(Redhorse(( TH( 15( 14( 10( 10( 10( 10( 1( 1( 1( ( Channel(Darter(( TH( 40( 15( 8( 8( 8( 9( 3( 3( 1( ( Eastern(Sand( Darter(( TH( 7( 19( 10( 8( 8( 12( 1( 1( 1( ( Lake(Sturgeon(( TH( 47( 18( 16( 14( 12( 18( 5( 1( 1(

( Pugnose( Minnow( TH( 9(to(10( 10( 9( 8( 8( 4( 1( 1( 1( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( Silver(Shiner(( TH( 6( 13( 9( 8( 8( 8( 1( 1( 1( ( Spotted(Gar(( TH( 3( 11( 8( 6( 5( 9( 3( 2( 1( ( Blackstripe( Topminnow( SC( 8(to(10( 1( 1( 1( 1( 1( 1( 1( 1( ( Bridle(Shiner( SC( 19( 23( 14( 14( 14( 5( 2( 1( 1( ( Grass(Pickerel( SC( 10( 31( 23( 19( 18( 15( 5( 1( 1( ( Northern(Brook( Lamprey(( SC( 31( 17( 14( 10( 10( 15( 3( 2( 1( ( River(Redhorse(( SC( 22( 12( 10( 10( 9( 11( 4( 2( 1( ( Silver(Lamprey(( SC( 30( 23( 13( 12( 11( 20( 4( 2( 1( ( Spotted(Sucker( SC( 7( 14( 7( 7( 7( 6( 1( 1( 1( ( Warmouth(( SC( 1(to(4( 4( 3( 2( 2( 3( 2( 1( 1(

Appendix(4.(Average(adult(body(length((mm)(and(Average(adult(body(weight((ug)(measurements(used(in(MAPV1(and(MAPV2( calculations(for(20(atOrisk(freshwater(fish(species.(Average(adult(body(length(and(average(adult(body(weight(data(collected(from(the( Ontario(Freshwater(Fishes(Life(History(Database((http://www.ontariofishes.ca/home.htm)(and(The(ROM(Field(Guide(to(Freshwater( Fishes(of(Ontario((Holm(et(al.(2010).(

Common(Name( Scientific(Name( Average(Body(Length((g)(in(ON( Average(Body(Weight((ug)(in(ON( Lake(Chubsucker(( Erimyzon)sucetta) 200( 18(000(000( Northern(Madtom(( Noturus)stigmosus)) 80( 13(000(000( Pugnose(Shiner(( Notropis)anogenus) 50( 2(000(000( Redside(Dace(( Clinostomus)elongatus)) 75( 7(000(000( Silver(Chub( Macrhybopsis)storeriana) 120( 60(000(000( Black(Redhorse(( Moxostoma)duquesnei)) 400( 700(000(000( Channel(Darter(( Percina)copelandi) 45( N/A( Eastern(Sand(Darter(( Ammocrypta)pellucida)) 60( 2(000(000( Lake(Sturgeon(( Acipenser)fulvescens) 1170( 20(100(000(000( Pugnose(Minnow( Opsopoeodus)emiliae)) 50( 2(000(000( Silver(Shiner(( Notropis)photogenus) 100( 18(000(000( Spotted(Gar(( Lepisosteus)oculatus)) 510( 1(600(000(000( Blackstripe(Topminnow( Fundulus)notatus) 50( 4(000(000( Bridle(Shiner( Notropis)bifrenatus) 50( 2(000(000( Grass(Pickerel( Esox)americanus)vermiculatus)) 175( 170(000(000( Northern(Brook(Lamprey(( Ichthyomyzon)fossor)) 150( 8(000(000( River(Redhorse(( Moxostoma)carinatum) 450( 2(800(000(000( Silver(Lamprey(( Ichthyomyzon)unicuspis) 255( 70(000(000( Spotted(Sucker( Minytrema)melanops) 255( 740(000(000( Warmouth(( Lepomis)gulosus) 155( 270(000(000(