State of California The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF AND GAME

STATUS AND PROPOSED MANAGEMENT OF THE ROUGH SCULPIN, ASPERRIMUS RUTTER, IN CALIFORNIA

by

Robert A. Daniels, Ph.D. New York State Museum, Albany

and

Louis A. Courtois, Ph.D. Inland Fisheries, Sacramento

Inland Fisheries Endangered Species Program

Special Publication 82-1

February 1982

LDA Endangered Species Program Special Publications are nonrefereed reports generally of two types: they may contain information of sufficient importance to be preserved for future reference but which may not be currently appropriate for journal publications; or they may be reports which contain information of current significance that warrants early dissemination to biologists, managers, and administrators but which may later be submitted for formal scientific publica- tion. These reports can be cited in publications, but their manuscript status should be recognized.

Subject matter reflects the broad array of research and management conducted in California on nongame species of reptiles, amphibians, and nonmarine and invertebrates, with primary emphasis on endangered, threatened, and rare taxa.

Inquiries concerning any particular report should be directed to the Inland Fisheries Branch, 1416 Ninth Street, Sacramento, California 95814. STATUS AND PROPOSED MANAGEMENT OF THE ROUGH SCIAPIN, COTTUS ASFERRIMUS RUTTER, IN CALIFORNIAL/

by

/ Robert A. Daniels, Ph.D.-

and / Louis A. Courtois,

ABSTRACT

The rough sculpin, Cottus asperrimus, is a small, demersal fish inhabiting the large tributaries flowing into the middle portion of the Pit River in northeastern California. It is probably a relict from a large Pleistocene lake which once covered the area and is adapted to an environmentally stable habitat. This fish is biologically rare due to its extremely small range and was so designated by the California Fish and Game Commission in 1973. Although it is not currently endangered, it is potentially threatened by habitat degradation in the form of increased shoreline development, changes in land use, and introduction of exotic organisms. Monitoring of the fish and its habitat will be necessary to determine any unnatural decline of this ecologically interesting sculpin.

1/ In1and Fisheries Endangered Species Program Special Publica- tion 82-1. This report was prepared as part of an Endangered Species Act grant-in-aid project, "California E-F-4, Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Fish." Direct reprint requests to junior author. 2/ New York State Museum, Biological Survey, Cultural Education Center, Room 3122, Albany, New York 12230. 3/ Fishery Biologist, Endangered Species Program, Inland Fisheries Branch, 1701 Nimbus Road, Rancho Cordova, California 95670.

Current address: Anadromous Fisheries Branch, 1701 Nimbus Road, Rancho Cordova, California 95670. -3-

INTRODUCTION

The rough sculpin, COTTUS asperrimus, is the smallest member of the family in California. It is unmistakenly identified by its relatively narrow body shape and extremely rough skin. The specific name, asperrimus, translated from Latin means "most rough".

COTTUS asperrimus occupies the middle reaches of the Pit River system of north- eastern California. Rutter (1908) sampled this area of the upper Sacramento River drainage and collected five type specimens from the Fall River near Dana (Figure 1) in the latter part of the nineteenth century.

In 1973, the California Fish and Game Commission declared the rough sculpin rare, a status merited by its extremely small range and by its relatively infrequent occurrence in samples. In 1974, the California Department of Fish and Game conducted a general stream survey of the Pit River system to determine the range and relative abundance of the rough sculpin (Daniels and Moyle 1978).

Management of the rough sculpin, as with any organism, requires a defined purpose and goal. The purposes of this paper are to summarize the available information on the rough sculpin, and outline activities to be carried out by the California Department of Fish and Game in cooperation with local landowners. The goal of these activities is to ensure continued protection of the rough sculpin population and enhancement of its existing habitat. To properly achieve this goal, an understanding of the life history and distribution of C. asperrimus is necessary. Once this information is known, a cooperative effort, including the private sector and all concerned governmental agencies, is needed to formulate and implement a protection plan. Here we compile what is currently known about the biology of the rough sculpin and offer recommenda- tions which, if implemented, will serve to protect not only the species but also the habitat in which it lives.

NOMENCLATURE

COTTUS asperrima, Rutter, 1908:144-5 COTTUS gulosus, Snyder, 1917:82 COTTUS asperrimus, Hubbs and Schultz, 1932:5 COTTUS asperrimus, Hubbs and Miller, 1948:69 COTTUS asperrimus, Bailey and Dimick, 1949:16 COTTUS asperrimus, Shapovalov and Dill, 1950:387 COTTUS asperrimus, Robins and Miller, 1957:223 COTTUS asperrimus, Shapovalov, Dill, and Cordone, 1959:173 COTTUS asperrimus, Moyle, 1976:365 COTTUS asperrimus, Daniels and Moyle, 1978:673-679 COTTUS asperrimus, Shapovalov, Cordone, and Dill, 1981

DESCRIPTION

The rough sculpin was first described by Cloudsley Rutter in a preliminary report to the Bureau of Fisheries which was not completed at the time of his death in 1903. The report was finally published in 1908 with only minor revision. Rutter based the description on five specimens, the holotype (No. 58500, United States National Museum) and four paratypes. The type STAREDAY Goose Lake

MT. SHAST Alt uras a Canby

South Fork A Pit River

Adin McCLOUD L RIVER Big Lake ') ..FALL R. ' Bieber "N Fall ttvilte PIT River RIVER Mills

Burney Cassel

Burney IC km Cr. SHASTA L AKE HAT CR.

SACRAMENTO RIVER 122°00' LASSEN PK. 120°30'

1. Pit River system, northeastern California. Stippled area shows contiguous range of rough sculpin, Co,ttus asperrimus. -5- was the Fall River at Dana, The following description is based on that of Rutter (1908), Robins and Miller (1957), Moyle (1976), and personal observa- tions of the senior author.

The rough sculpin possesses a slender but not particularly compressed body. The dorsal and ventral surfaces are finely mottled, varying in color from gray to light brown. The mottling forms four or five lateral blotches. The venter tends to be white, although Robins and Miller (1957) state that the venter shows "profuse chromatophores". The dorsal and pectoral fins are barred; the anal fin may possess some chromatophores on the rays; and the pelvic fins are white.

Moyle (1976) describes the meristic characteristics:

Rough sculpin...consistently have 1 spine and 3 rays in the pelvic fins (three elements). There are 5 to 7 spines in the first dorsal fin, 17 to 19 rays in the second dorsal, 13 to 17 anal-fin rays, 14 to 16 rays in each pectoral fin (many of them branched), and 19 to 29 lateral-line pores.

Rutter (1908) describes the mensural characteristics:

Head 3.2 to 3.33 in length; depth 5.5; eye 3.5 to 4 in head; snout a little longer than eye; width of caudal peduncle 1.25 to 1.33 in eye, its depth slightly greater than eye; maxillary 2.5 in head, extending to vertical through anterior edge of pupil; profile flat or concave back of eye; interorbital space 0.5 of eye; spinous dorsal low, its outline not so strongly arched, .spines very weak, longest about equal to eye; longest soft ray of dorsal about 2 in head; origin of soft dorsal at or behind middle of body; caudal convex, 1.33 to 1.43 in head; ventrals 1.6 in head, the rays graduated, the outer 0.66 length of inner; distance from snout to vent 0.54 to 0.56 of body.

There is no discernible sexual dimorphism in either color, meristics, or morphometrics. It is morphologically simlar to the slender sculpin, C. tenuis, of the Klamath River drainage and this relationship may indicate a previous connection between these two drainages (Hubbs and Miller 1948). Rough sculpin can be distinguished from the marbled (C. kZamathensis), Pit (C. pitensis), and riffle (C. gulosus) sculpins, other cottids present in the Pit River system, by its general body shape, color, size,and amount of axillary prickles on the body. Table 1 compares some characteristics between C. asperrimus and C. tenuis, the sculpin with which it is most morphologically similar, and between the other sculpins with which it is most commonly collected, C. klamathensis and C. pitensis.

TAXONOMY

The taxonomic status of C. asperrimus is remarkably simple. The species has been regarded as valid since its original description, except for a brief period when Snyder (1917) synonymized C. asperrimus with C. gulosus. However, this change was not widely accepted (Hubbs and Schultz 1932; Hubbs and Miller 1948), and the two species were removed from synonymy by Bailey and Dimick (1949). Cottus asperrimus is the most similar in TABLE 1. Comparison of Meristic Characteristics and Color Among Four Species of Sculpins from Northeastern Californial/.

Character C. asperrimus C. tenuis C. kZamathensis C. pitensis

Anal rays 13-17 13-17 13-15 13-15

Dorsal rays 17-19 17-19 18-20 17-18

Dorsal spines 5-7 5-6 5-7 8-9

Dorsal interspace present present absent present

Pectoral rays 14-16 13-16 14-16 13-15

Pelvic elements usually 3 usually 3 usually 4 usually 4

Caudal rays (branched) usually 7 usually 7 usually 9 usually 9

Preopercular spines 1+ 3 1-2 2-3

Lateral-line pores 19-29 23-32 14-29 31-39

Lateral line continues to continues to continues to continues to last dorsal ray caudal peduncle caudal peduncle caudal peduncle

Axillary prickles extensive extensive to usually absent patch mesial to moderate pectoral fin

General color gray to light gray to brown yellow to olive yellow to green olive or brown brown

Color of venter white with some silvery to green brown light yellow to scattered chroma- brassy brown tophores

1/ - Information compiled from Rutter (1908), Robins and Miller (1957), and Moyle (1976). -7- appearance to C. tenuis of the Klamath River system, an observation first noted by Rutter in his original description and emphasized by Hubbs and Miller (1948) and Robins and Miller (1957). The cottids of the Pit and Klamath rivers have been described and classified using meristic and morphometric characteristics. Enzymatic comparisons using biochemical techniques (electrophoresis) as well as karyotyping would be interesting and provide further insight into the interspecific relationships of these species.

DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE

Historical

Little is known of the historical range of the rough sculpin. Rutter (1908) sampled ten different sites in the Pit River drainage in 1898. He collected rough sculpin from only two sites, those on the Fall River at Dana and Fall River Mills. He did not collect this species from eight other sites in the drainage, namely Joseph Creek off North Fork Pit River, South Fork Pit River at Jess Valley Post Office, Pit River at Canby, Bieber and Pittville, Burney Creek at Burneyville [sic], Rush Creek near Adin, and Hat Creek near Cassel (Figure 1). Carl L. Hubbs sampled four localities in the Pit River system in 1934. Three sites, Rush Creek near Adin, Fall River near Dana, and North Fork Pit River east of Alturas, duplicated or were close to Rutter's collection sites; the fourth site, Hat Creek near Old Station Post Office, was new (R. M. Bailey, Univ. Mich., pers. commun.). He collected rough sculpin at Fall River near Dana and one specimen (University of Michigan Museum of Zoology No. 130647) was taken in Rush Creek (Carl L. Hubbs, pers. commun.). From these brief and scattered notes we assume that the rough sculpin has been historically confined to the Fall River and lower Hat Creek and perhaps the Pit River in the area below the falls (Figure 2).

Rutter (1908) also briefly mentioned that C. asperrimus was not abundant in the seine samples from either Dana or Fall River Mills. Instead, C. macrops (i.e., klamathensis) dominated the samples. However, in Hubbs' samples, rough sculpin dominated marbled sculpin six to one (Bailey, pers. commun.).

Current distribution of the rough sculpin has been described by Daniels and Moyle (1978), who also determined their relative abundance. In the Fall River and its tributaries, the rough sculpin was the most abundant fish numerically (comprising up to 80% of the total fish sampled). Lower Hat Creek contained 30-50% C. asperrimus, but at all other sites in the Pit River drainage less than 10% of the fish were rough sculpin.

Interbasin Connections

Russell (1884) was the first to postulate the existence of a quarternary lake basin connecting the Klamath basin, Oregon, and northern California. He estimated the lake to be several hundred feet deep. Eventually the lake over- flowed and cut down to the tributary (Klamath River) which exists today. Meinzer (1922) proposed a similar lake system. Hanna and Gester (1963) postulated a connection between lower Klamath Lake and Butte Valley during the Pliocene. Butte Valley today contains a flat ancient lake basin (Meiss 121°50' Bear Cr. 121°30'

Spring Cr. _Squaw Cr Big 5 km •,,L a vcar 4 •4_, ,1•0?■. Lake 4 Clark 4.* -, ■ Horr d0- Pond Cr. Tule River

Cayton Cr.

Rock Fat Cr. Britton eservoir River FALL RIVER ILLS 41° Sucker 00'"" Pit Spr. -153a Fish River Barrier Pit Tunriel Falls Reseroir Hat Burney Cr. Cr. Baum Crystal Lake Lake Rock Spr. CASSEL Goose Cr. Rising River Lake Rising BURNEY River

FIGURE 2. Distril Aion of rough sculpin, Cottus asperrimus, in the Pit River system. -9-

Lake). Fossil evidence from Cedar Point indicates the lake elevation to have been between 1.29 and 1.34 km (4,240 and 4,400 ft). Delineation of the 1.34 km (4,400 ft) contour line within this area reveals the Fall River Valley, Big Valley, and the Klamath lakes basin could have been connected at one time. Figure 3 shows the basins that fall within the 1.34 km (4,400 ft) elevation. The taxonomic closeness of C. asperrimus and C. tenuis suggests they both originated from a common progenitor when the Klamath basin and northern California were connected (Robins and Miller 1957, Bond 1963). Other species common to the area--marbled sculpin, tui chub, Pit-Klamath brook lamprey, and speckled dace--also seem to represent a relict association of fishes from a time when the Pit and Klamath River drainages were joined. The fact that these species tend to be found in headwaters generally associated with other native species (Daniels and Moyle 1978) suggest that the "original Klamath stream fauna had been nearly overwhelmed by a more aggressive Sacramento fauna that entered the region as the Pit River cut back onto the lava plateau to capture some interior drainage" (Hubbs and Miller 1948).

Present

In 1973 and 1974, the Pit River and its tributaries were sampled using back- pack electroshockers (Smith Root Type V) and hand seines to determine distribution of native and introduced fishes (Moyle and Daniels 1981). In 1978, the middle reaches of the drainage, namely Fall River, Hat Creek, and Pit River between Fall River confluence and the mouth of Kosk Creek and all of its tributaries, were again surveyed during routine monitoring by snorkling, setting baited traps, and electroshocking (see Daniels 1980). Rough sculpin were collected at 20 sites in 1974. None were taken at new sites in 1978, nor did population sizes at any of the repeat sites appear different. Rough sculpin were common [5 to 25 sculpins per 100 m (328.1 ft) of stream] throughout the Fall River system including Spring Creek, Lava Creek, Squaw Creek, Tule River, and Big Lake, but were absent from Bear Creek. It was common in lower Hat Creek downstream from an artificial fish barrier (Figure 2). It was also taken or observed in the Pit River upstream from the mouth of Hat Creek, Tunnel Reservoir, the mouth of Clark Creek at Britton Reservoir, in the pool below Britton Dam, in the pool at Pacific Gas and Electric Company Powerhouse 2 on Hat Creek, and in Crystal Lake, but it was rare (less than five sculpins per 100 m) at all of these locations.

LIFE HISTORY

History

Rough sculpin are generally found in cool, deep, clear, and rapidly flowing water. They are associated with rooted aquatic vegetation, fine-grained substrate, and runs (rapidly flowing water without surface breaks). Tnese characteristics aptly fit the Fall River, lower Hat Creek, and Crystal Lake. All three bodies of water are spring-fed and each arises at the base of large lava flows and has few, if any, tributary streams. Rough sculpin, however, are also found in areas which differ from this general description. It was common in Big Lake, which is turbid, and relatively warm (summer temperatures over 30°C). In 1974, rough sculpin were abundant (more than 25 sculpins per 100 m) in South Fork Mallard Creek, a short (less than 100 m), spring-fed -10-

Below 4400 ft. elev.

Above 4400 ft. elev.

River

- Lake - EZI1 Pleistocene lakebed as proposed by Russell (1884)

Clear Lake Res.

FIGURE 3. Postulated historic connections between the Klamath and Pit River drainages. -11- stream flowing into the upper Fall River, This creek was small, shallow, rubble-bottomed, and dominated by riffles. However, in 1978 after 2 years of drought, Mallard Creek was dry.

When other sculpin species are present, as in Hat Creek downstream from the fish barrier, C. asperrimus are found in the sandy, shallow stream margins. This can be explained in two possible ways: either the rough sculpin has been displaced to the stream margins by other, perhaps more aggressive, sculpin species; or that, although rough sculpin are capable of tolerating a wide variety of habitat types, it prefers the sandy, run-dominated stream margins reminiscent of the large spring-fed rivers. The critical studies to explain this observation are yet to be completed. In all locations where rough sculpin were found, cover, either as aquatic vegetation or isolated rubble, was also important.

Age-Growth

Cottus asperrimus (Figure 4) is a small, slow-growing fish which lives for a maximum of 5 years (Daniels and Moyle 1978). Daniels (unpublished data) found no sex-related differences in growth rates; males, however, may live longer than females. Of 1,007 specimens collected in 1977-78, standard length (SL) ranged from a 6 mm (.23 in.) fish collected in July to an 81 mm (3.16 in.) male captured in December. From both length-frequency histograms and back-calculated lengths determined from otoliths, rough sculpin reach 30-35 mm SL (1.17-1.36 in.) during their first growing season and gain an additional 10-16 mm (.39-.62 in.) per year thereafter. Their length-weight relationship is approximated by log SL = -11.2 + 3.1 (log W).

Feeding

The rough sculpin is an ambush predator, lying motionless until a suitable prey item enters its range. It is opportunistic in prey selection and feeds on a wide variety of prey types. Chironomid and ephemeropt larvae were the dominant food items found in stomachs throughout the year (Table 2). Noticeably absent from stomachs were stonefly larvae and gastropods, both extremely common in benthic samples taken concurrently.

Feeding varied little with season but did vary over a 24-hour period. Feeding was greatest at dawn and dusk and was lowest midday. Diel differences in size of prey consumed were also apparent. Larger prey, such as crustacea and later instar larvae were consumed during the dark (Daniels and Moyle 1978).

Reproduction

Rough sculpin are oviparous, have low fecundity, and a variable reproductive season (Moyle and Daniels 1981). Males occupy a protected area under a stone or submerged log (nest site), attract one or more females into the nest, spawn and then guard the eggs. Nests have been observed with up to 3,000 eggs in up to three stages of development. The incubation period is probably 2-3 weeks. Fecundity varies with size of female; a female 47 mm (1.83 in.) SL had 200 secondary oocytes and a 70 mm (2.73 in.) SL female had about 500 oocytes (Daniels and Moyle 1978). It appears that each female spawns only once during the season. The onset of the reproductive season differs with area. Nests FIGURE 4. Rough sculpin, Cottus asperrimus, Fall River. TABLE 2. Frequency of Occurrence (%), Composition of Diet by Number of Prey Items, and Point Volume in Rough Sculpin Collected in Hat Creek, Shasta County, California, 1977-78.

February (n=122) July (n=120) September (n=72) Item Occurrence Number Volume Occurrence Number Volume Occurrence Number Volume

Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae 11 2 3 1 1 1 Siphlonuridae 49 20 26 18 5 15 11 3 9 Tricorythidae 34 14 9 4 2 4 30 6 9 Baetidae 10 2 2 10 4 8 28 16 15 Other 1 + 1 4 3 6

Plecoptera Perlodidae 4 1 2 6 1 1 Chloroperlidae 10 3 3 Other 2 1 1 3 1 2 1 , 1- (....) Trichoptera t 6 1 1 3 1 2 9 2 2 7 3 2 5 2 3 10 4 3 6 1 1 3 1 1 13 3 2 Other 3 + 1 3 + 1

Dip tera Tipulidae 6 1 1 3 + + 4 1 1 Chironomidae 34 34 10 72 74 32 72 44 18

Other 3 + + 2 + 1

Crustacea 12 4 7 11 3 2

Gas tropoda Hydrobiidae 2 + + 4 2 2 20 8 4 Planorbidae 11 3 2 Other 11 9 4 TABLE 2. (Contd)

February (n=122) July (n=120) September (n=72) Item Occurrence Number Volume Occurrence Number Volume Occurrence Number Volume

Hirudinea 18 5 22 3 1 9 7 1 12

Other 3 + + 7 + 4 7 1 5

Debris 43 14 8 5 20 5 -15- were observed in the Fall River from mid-September through late January. All of the spring areas examined had nests, including Fall River at its source, and Spring and Lava creeks. Ripe females were taken in Hat Creek from mid-February to early May. Nests have never been observed in the Hat Creek system although apparently suitable areas were examined. Most males and some females reached sexual maturity in their second year; all were mature in their third year. Sex ratios favored females at most sites (6:4).

DISCUSSION

It is difficult to assess changes in the status of rough sculpin populations since we don't have a reliable estimate of historical range or abundance. In the 5 years between the 1973-74 and 1978 surveys, the populations appear to have remained relatively stable. It is important to note, however, that the riverine habitat in which the rough sculpin is found has also changed little during the 5 years of monitoring. The rarity of rough sculpin lies in its restricted range, a total of approximately 80 stream km (50 miles).

Essential Habitat

The following areas should be considered as habitat essential for the continued survival of C. asperrimus: The entire Fall River system, including Fall River, Big Lake, Horr Pond, Tule and Little Tule rivers, Lava Creek, Squaw Creek, and Spring Creek, but excluding Bear Creek; parts of the Hat Creek system, including lower Hat Creek downstream from Pacific Gas and Electric Company Powerhouse 2 and Crystal Lake, but excluding Hat Creek upstream from its confluence with Rising River; the tail end of Britton Reservoir; and parts of the Pit River and its minor tributaries, including Sucker Springs Creek and Tunnel Reservoir.

Areas which do not presently support rough sculpin but which appear to be either potential habitat, or areas in which surveys for rough sculpin have not been conducted may be identified as essential habitat at a later date. These areas include Rising River, Baum Lake, Rising River Lake, and Rock Springs Creek in the Hat Creek system and Britton Reservoir including lower Clark, Burney, and Cayton creeks and all reservoirs downstream from Britton Dam.

Status

The rough sculpin was listed as a rare species in 1973 by the California Fish and Game Commission on the basis of initial field surveys in 1973. After reviewing all available information it appears the species should still be considered a biologically rare species. The primary reasons for the classifica- tion are the limited distribution within California, and the low population density within its range.

Managing a species with limited distribution requires not only periodic surveys of those habitats containing the species, but also an understanding of the threats to the species. A major potential threat is the introduction of nonnative fishes. There are many examples of the adverse effects of introduced exotic fishes upon native fishes (Courtois and Tippets 1979; Black 1980; Mills and Mamika 1980; and Mills 1980). In most situations the exotic species either prey upon the native species, its eggs and fry, or the exotic hybridizes with the native species, thus genetically reducing the "pure" population. The ultimate effect in either case is a decrease in "pure" breeding stock, thus decreasing the chance for survival of the native species. -16-

The low abundance of C. asperrimus within existing habitats is another source of concern. Extirpation of C. asperrimus from a portion of its present range would require a long time for recovery of the population. Its low fecundity and slow •growth rate would cause natural recolonization to be a slow process. A second reason for slow recolonization relates to forage. This species is limited by its size to feeding on smaller food organisms. This limits distribution by confining the dispersal of young to a relatively short time each year when suitable-sized prey are available.

Presently the two major populations, those in Fall River and lower Hat Creek, appear secure. Part of the reason for this security results from current management of these areas as wild trout streams. This management is compatible with maintaining the rough sculpin as long as game fish populations do not become depressed by nongame fish. If the balance becomes upset, chemical treatment is often used to reduce the populations of unwanted species (usually suckers and chubs). However, chemicals would also adversely affect the resident sculpin both directly and indirectly. Cottus asperrimus would be killed by any chemical treatment within areas of known occurrence. Indirect loss would result from impacts of chemical treatments on the fauna, thus further reducing the already limited food supply for any surviving C. asperrimus. Should stream sections containing rough sculpin ever be considered for chemical treatment steps must be taken to reduce the direct and indirect effects on this native species.

Although the shorelines of both streams are largely in private ownership (Figure 5), owners have maintained natural conditions. Development along the stream has been minimal, and in some cases landowners have fought to prevent development on adjacent property. This is probably the major reason why the habitat exists today. Future protection depends upon the DFG, PG&E, and other private landowners working closely to preserve the existing habitat. There are several management recommendations which would protect existing habitat as well as increase the biological knowledge of the species.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The rough sculpin is neither endangered nor threatened--it is biologically rare and as such deserves special attention and legal protection. Protection of the rough sculpin as a rare species necessitates two types of recommendations; those related to protection of the species based on the information currently available and those designed to increase our knowledge of the rough sculpin and its environment.

A. Recommendations for continued protection:

1. The middle reaches of the Pit River system between the conflucnces of the Fall River and Hat Creek should be managed in such a manner to protect not only the rare organisms but also other aquatic species presently common to the area. This can be accomplished by the following:

a. Prohibiting the introduction of any other organism into this anm. • This would include live bait of any sort and stocking of game fishes, both trout and bass, to sustain an artificial fishery. In short, the entire area described above as essential habitat should be managed as wild trout streams. 121°50' Bear Cr. 121°30'

Spring r. 5 km ig , k :Lake Clark Cr. Pond ule River

Cayton Cr.

Britton RF Reservoir ALL RIVER ILLS Sucker 41° Pit Spr Tunnel River Pit Reseroir Falls at Burney Cr. D Private Cr. f3aum NIN Pacific Gas EA Crystal Lake Electric Co. Lake ' Rock Spr. Government CASSEL Goose Cr. isingfRiver Lake Rising BURNEY River

FIGURE 5. Patterns of ownership in areas adjacent to rough sculpin habitat, Pit River system. -18-

b. Limiting shoreline development. It is obvious that the system and organisms living in it can adjust to many changes. However, soil disturbance and siltation,both results of shoreline development, would not be acceptable changes since many of the species present in the system are bottom dwellers and require clean water, clean gravel, and aquatic vegetation.

c. Protecting the watershed. Any impacts upon the watershed from logging and farming operations upstream should be dealt with immediately. Proposals to rechannel, channelize, or dam upstream areas should be examined keeping the ecological needs of the rough sculpin in mind.

d. Avoiding chemical treatment upstream and within the essential habitat. If streams are chemically treated, populations of rough sculpin should be collected and maintained outside the area to be treated and returned to the treated streams as soon as possible.

It is unknown at the present time if speed boating and water skiing are harmful to rough sculpin populations. The presence of a number of rough sculpin nesting areas around the north shore of Big Lake and Horr Pond necessitates study of these potential effects upon spawning success of rough sculpin. This land is currently owned by the California State Park system. If the area is opened to boating it should be limited to electric, wind, or self-powered vessels (sailboats, canoes, paddleboats, and boats with small electric outboard motors) until these potential impacts of power boating can be evaluated.

2. The existence of this rare species should be well publicized. Displays should be installed in areas of public access. These displays would be designed to inform the public about the role rough sculpin plays in the ecological balance of the area and why it is a biologically rare species.

3. Much of the property surrounding rough sculpin essential habitat is privately owned. To date the private owners have managed these lands with minimal impact on sculpin habitat. Should this change, the State or Federal government and various private conservation organizations should consider buying property as it enters the market.

4. The status of the rough sculpin in the many reservoirs downstream from the mouth of Hat Creek should be assessed. Their presence in lower Clark Creek and in the pool below Britton Dam suggest that a population may also exist in Britton Reservoir.

5. Fish abundance in all areas should be monitored at least once annually in early summer by underwater (mask and snorkel) counts along designated transects to provide baseline population data. Once all areas have been monitored for 2 years (baseline survey), monitoring frequency can be reduced to once every 5 years. Should changes in land use occur more frequent monitoring will be necessary.

B. Recommendations for increasing our knowledge of this species: -19-

1. The interspecific relationships of cottids of the Pit and Klamath rivers need to be studied. The fact that breeding seasons may differ between the two major populations in the system indicates that differ- ences may exist at a subspecific, not population, level. These questions should be examined using currently available biochemical (electrophoresis and karyotyping) techniques.

2. Other studies on the biology and life history of the species should be encouraged to increase our understanding of its environmental needs. These include: (a) behavioral interactions at both the intra- and interspecific levels; (b) development and early life history studies; and (c) microhabitat relationships and requirements.

It is not the aim of these recommendations to suggest the need for either an increase in the range or local abundance of the rough sculpin. This species will probably always be biologically rare. Instead, it is hoped that by taking these management actions early enough and with the proper amount of effort, there will be no need in the future to list this species as either endangered or extinct.

REFERENCES

Bailey, R. M., and M. F. Dimick. 1949. COTTUS hubbsi, a new cottid fish from the Columbia River system in Washington and Idaho. Univ. Mich. Occ. Pap., Mus. Zool. 513:1-18.

Black, G. 1980. Status of the desert pupfish, Cyprinodon macularius (Baird and Girard), in California. Dep. Fish Game Inland Fish. End. Sp. Prog. Spec. Publ. 80-1. 42 p.

Bond, C. E. 1963. Distribution and ecology of freshwater sculpins, COTTUS, in Oregon. Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. Mich. 186 p.

Courtois, L. A., and W. Tippets. 1979. Status of the Owens pupfish, Cyprinodon radiosus (Miller), in California. Dep. Fish Game Inland Fish. End. Sp. Prog. Spec. Publ. 79-3. 31 p.

Daniels, R. A. 1980. Distributionand status of crayfishes in the Pit River drainage, California. Crustaceana 38:131-138.

Daniels. R. A., and P. B. Moyle. 1978. Biology, distribution and status of COTTUS asperrimus in the Pit River drainage, northeastern California. Copeia 1978:673-679.

Hanna, G. D., and G. C. Gester. 1963. Pleistocene lakebeds near Dorris, California. Occ. Pap. Calif. Acad. Sci. 42:1-17.

Hubbs, C. L., and R. R. Miller. 1948. The Great Basin with emphasis on glacial and postglacial times. II. The zoological evidence. Univ. Utah Bull. 38:17-166.

Hubbs, C. L., and L. P. Schultz. 1932. COTTUS TUBULATUS, a new sculpin from Idaho. Univ. Mich. Occ. Pap. Mus. Zool. 242:1-9. Meinzer, D. E. 1922. Map of the pleistocene lakes of the basin-and-range province and its significance. Bull. Geol. Soc. Mn, 33:541-552.

Mills, T. J. 1980. Life history, status, and management of the Modoc sucker, Catostomus microps (Rutter) in California, with a recomdendation for endangered classification. Dep. Fish Game. Inland Fish. End. Sp. Frog. Spec. Publ. 80-6. 35 p.

Mills, T. J., and K. A. Mamika. 1980. The thicktail chub, Gila crassicauda, an extinct California fish. Dep. Fish Game Inland Fish. End. Sp. Prog. Spec. Publ. 80-2. 21 p.

Moyle, P. B. 1976. Inland fishes of California. Univ. Calif. Press, Berkeley. 405 p.

Moyle, P. B., and R. A. Daniels. 1981. Studies on the distribution and ecology of stream fishes of the Sacramento-San Joaquin drainage system. I. Fishes of the Pit River system, McCloud River system and the Surprise Valley region. Univ. of Calif. Publ. Zool. (in press).

Robins, C. R., and R. R. Miller. 1957. Classification, variation and distribu- tion of the sculpins, genus Cottus, inhabiting Pacific slope waters in California and southern Oregon, with a key to the species. Calif. Fish Game 43:213-233.

Russell, I. C. 1884. A geological reconnaissance in southern Oregon. U.S.G.S. 4th Annual Report 4(1882-1883):431-464.

Rutter, C. 1908. The fishes of the Sacramento-San Joaquin basin, with a study of their distribution and variation. U. S. Bur. Fish. Bull. 27:103-152.

Shapovalov, L., A. J. Cordone, and W. A. Dill. 1981. A list of the freshwater and anadromous fishes of California. Calif. Fish Game 67(1):4-38.

Shapovalov, L., and W. A. Dill. 1950. A check list of the freshwater and anadromous fishes of California. Calif. Fish Game 36(4):382-391.

Shapovalov, L., W. A. Dill, and A. J. Cordone. 1959. A revised check list of the freshwater and anadromous fishes of California. Calif. Fish Game 45(3): 159-180.

Snyder, J. 0. 1917. The fishes of the Lahontan system of Nevada and north- eastern California. U. S. bur. Fish. Bull. 35:31-86.