| Element Code | +Scientific Name | +Scientific Name Synonyms | +English Name | +English Name Synonyms | +Provincial Status | +Date Status Assigned | +Date Status Last Reviewed | +Status Reasons | +Range Extent | +Range Extent Estimate (km2) | +Range Extent Comments | +Area of Occupancy (km2) | +Area of Occupancy Estimate (km2) | +Linear Distance of Occupancy | +Area/Linear Distance of Occupancy Comments | +Spatial Pattern | +Number of Occurrences | +Number of Occurrences Comments | +Number of Occurrences with Good Viability / Ecological Integrity | +Percent Area with Good Viability / Ecological Integrity | +Good Viability / Ecological Integrity Comments | +Number of Occurrences Appropriately Protected & Managed | +Occurrences Appropriately Protected & Managed Comments | +Population Size | +Population Size Comments | +Degree of Threat | +Threat Comments | +Short-Term Trend | +Short-Term Trend Comments | +Long-Term Trend | +Long-Term Trend Comments | +Intrinsic Vulnerability | +Intrinsic Vulnerability Comments | +Environmental Specificity | +Environmental Specificity Comments | +Other Rank Considerations | +Research Needs | +Inventory Needs | +Protection Needs | +Management Needs | +Report Author | +Report Version Date | +
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| + AFCAA01030 + | ++ Acipenser medirostris + | + ++ + | Green Sturgeon | + ++ + + + | S2S3N | + +May 15, 2019 | + + +May 15, 2019 | + +Green Sturgeon are slow growing, large fish that are occur in marine waters and rivers along the entire pacific coast. In B.C., they are known to move up several rivers; however, there is no evidence of spawning. Population numbers appear to be low, and they face significant threats including by-catch, habitat loss and degredation, and dam activity in the U.S. where spawning occurs. | + + + +G = 200,000-2,500,000 square km | + + +500,000 | + + +Green Sturgeon are anadramous fish found in marine waters along the coast from northern Mexico to Alaska. Although they are not known to spawn in B.C., they migrate up several rivers along the coast (COSEWIC 2004u, 2013m). | + + ++ + + | + + + | U = Unknown | + + +Unknown in B.C; however, COSEWIC (2013m) calculated the Index Area of Occupancy to be <2,000 km, based on populations in the USA. | + + ++ + + + | B = 6 - 20 | + + +There are rare reports of Green Sturgeon in the Nass, Stikine, Skeena, and Taku Rivers (FISS 2003, in COSEWIC 2004u). Sightings also occur every few years during the spring months off of rivers in the San Juan, Sooke, and Gold River areas on the West Coast of Vancouver Island (T. Michalski, BC MFLNRO, pers. comm., 2014 in Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2017b). NatureServe describes the definition of an occurrence as the entire freshwater area used for migration (NatureServe 2005, accessed December 7, 2018). Thus, there are at least eight occurrences in B.C. Marine: Recent research has identified large concentrations of Green Sturgeon near Brooks Peninsula on northwest Vancouver Island during May through June and October through November, suggesting that important overwintering habitat might exist north of Vancouver Island and south of Cape Spencer, Alaska (Lindley et al. 2008, in Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2017b). COSEWIC (2013m) states "...3-4 locations are marine overwintering hotspots, including, Haida Gwaii, northern Vancouver Island, and southwestern Vancouver Island (Huff et al. 2012). |
+
+
+Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + | + + + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + | DE = 1,000 - 10,000 individuals | + + +"Probably fewer than 10,000" (COSEWIC 2013m). | + + + + + +B = High | + + +The combination of morphology, life history and habitat make Green Sturgeon highly susceptible to impacts from human activity (Boreman 1997, in COSEWIC 2004u). Significant threats include exploitation, alteration of freshwater habitat and pollution.Green Sturgeon harvest is now mostly by-catch in White Sturgeon commercial and sport fisheries, Klamath Tribal salmon gill-net fisheries, and coastal groundfish trawl fisheries both in Canada and the USA. (COSEWIC 2004u, 2013m). | + + + +U = Unknown | + + +Due to a lack of data, trends in B.C. cannot be estimated.The majority of information comes from the United States, where all currently known spawning populations are located. Estimates of Green Sturgeon abundance in Canadian waters have not been made (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2017b). | + + +U = Unknown | + +Due to a lack of data, long term trends cannot be estimated. | + + + +B=Moderately vulnerable | + +Green Sturgeon are anadromous, slow growing and are slow to mature (approx. 15 years for males and 17 years for females); they have a relatively lower fecundity compared to other similar-sized sturgeon (COSEWIC 2004b). | + + +C=Moderate. Generalist or community with some key requirements scarce. | + +Green Sturgeon depend on unobstructed access to marine waters (for growth and maturation) and freshwater habitats (for reproduction)." (COSEWIC 2004u). They spend the first 1-4 years in freshwater; once they leave, they migrate and forage for benthic invertebrates in estuaries and marine areas. Adults return to their natal spawning sites and migrate up-river (COSEWIC 2004u). | + + ++ + + + | + + + | + + + + | + + | + + + + | Gelling, L. | + +May 15, 2019 | + + +
| + AFCAA01050 + | ++ Acipenser transmontanus + | + ++ + | White Sturgeon | + ++ + + + | S2 | + +November 10, 1994 | + + +April 27, 2018 | + +White Sturgeon are large-bodied fish that are slow to mature and long-lived. In British Columbia they are restricted to the Fraser, Columbia and Kootenay River systems and in Harrison and Pitt Lakes. Many populations are declining as a result of recruitment failure. Primary threats include habitat degredation from dam construction, changes to flow regimes and fishery by-catch. | + + + +F = 20,000-200,000 square km | + + +46158 | + + +White Sturgeon occur in western North America in the Fraser, Columbia and Sacramento-San Joaquin rivers. In British Columbia they occupy the Fraser, Columbia and Kootenay river systems, as well as Harrison and Pitt Lakes. They are primarily freshwater fish; however some individuals enter rivers, estuaries and bays along the coast (there is no evidence of breeding in coastal rivers). The extent of occurrence in B.C. is 46,158 km2, based on freshwater distribution (COSEWIC 2012f). COSEWIC (2012f) describes the following 4 designatable units (DU)/populations as follows: Lower Fraser River population: "...restricted to the Strait of Georgia and the lower Fraser River. It extends from the Fraser Delta to Hells Gate (about 204 river kilometres upstream)." Upper Fraser River population: "...encompasses about 1,000 km of the mainstem Fraser River between Hells Gate and the confluence of the Morkill and Fraser rivers. There are three geographic groups of sturgeon within the DU: the middle Fraser, upper Fraser, and Nechako River sturgeon groups. Upper Columbia River population: ??restricted to the mainstem Columbia River between the U.S. border and Revelstoke Dam in British Columbia. Here it encompasses about 425 km of the upper Columbia River. Suggestions of a remnant population between Revelstoke and Mica dams are unconfirmed.? Upper Kootenay River: ??restricted to Kootenay Lake and the Kootenay River between upstream of Bonnington Falls and the Idaho border with British Columbia. Here it encompasses about 288 km of the Kootenay River (including Kootenay Lake).? |
+
+
++ + + | 5,123 | + + +G = 2,001-10,000 | + + +Estimated as 5,123 km2, based on 1 x 1 km grid cells (COSEWIC 2012f) | + + ++ + + + | B = 6 - 20 | + + +There are 15 occurrences within the Fraser, Columbia and Kootenay river systems. | + + +Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + | + + + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + | F = 10,000 - 100,000 individuals | + + +There are approximately 11,544 mature individuals: Lower Fraser River: 8,460 (2011); Upper Fraser River: 1,294 (2012); Upper Columbia: 830 (2012); Upper Kootenay: 960 (2012) | + + + + + +AC = Very high - medium | + + +The main threats to White Sturgeon are habitat degredation from dam construction and changes to flow regime that appear to cause recruitment failure (COSEWIC 2012f). Threats to each population differ, ranging from Medium to Very High (Upper Columbia: High; Upper Kootenay: Very high-High; Upper Fraser: High-Medium; Lower Fraser: Very High-High (B.C. Conservation Data Centre ND; accessed July 17, 2019). Details on threats for each population can be found in COSEWIC (2012f) and Fisheries and Oceans Canada (2014). With the exception of the lower Fraser populations, white sturgeon appear to be endangered throughout their historical range in the province, primarily because of flow alteration by dams on the Nechako, Kootenay, and Columbia rivers (Apperson 1992; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994; Hildebrand 1991; R.L. & L. Environmental Services 1994; D. Ableson, pers. comm. 1992). An apparent decline in the eulachon (THALEICHTHYS PACIFICUS) populations in the lower Fraser River, a major food source for sturgeon, may be a cause for concern there (M. Rosenau, pers. comm. 1992). Loss of productive slough habitat in the Fraser Valley is probably reducing the potential for young sturgeon as well (Lane 1994). Contamination with heavy metals and other pollutants is also of concern. Recent unexplained deaths of large fish in the lower Fraser are a serious concern. |
+
+
+
+Rank Factor not assessed | + + +Short-term Trends for individual populations range from a decline of 10% to over 50% (Upper Columbia: 30-50%; Upper Kootenay: >50%; Upper Fraser: 10-30%; Lower Fraser: 30-50%) (B.C. Conservation Data Centre ND; accessed July 17, 2019). Populations in the Fraser below Quesnel are producing young, but there has been a significant decline in the number of juveniles appearing in the fishery in recent years (M. Rosenau, pers. comm.). Certainly they are much less abundant in the lower Fraser than they were historically (Lane 1991). Other populations such as those in the Nechako, Kootenay and Columbia rivers are even more threatened, with few or no young being produced or surviving in recent years (Apperson 1992; Hildebrand 1991; R.L. & L. Environmental Services 1994; D. Ableson, pers. comm. 1992). |
+
+
+Rank Factor not assessed | + +Long-term Trends for individual populations range from a decline of 10% to >90% (Upper Columbia: >50%; Upper Kootenay: >90%; Upper Fraser: 10-30%; Lower Fraser: 50-90%) (B.C. Conservation Data Centre ND; accessed July 17, 2019). | + + + +Rank Factor not assessed | + ++ + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + ++ + + | + + + + | + + + | + + + + | + + | + + + + | Cannings, S.G. and L. Gelling | + +July 17, 2019 | + + +
| + AFCAA01051 + | ++ Acipenser transmontanus pop. 1 + | + ++ + | White Sturgeon (Upper Kootenay River Population) | + ++ + + + | S1 | + +November 22, 1993 | + + +April 24, 2018 | + +This designatible unit is in decline despite the augmented flow program instituted in 1995. Very little recruitment has occurred since mid 1970's. Recruitment survival bottleneck at the egg/larva stage (Rust <i>et al.</i> 2004). | + + + +E = 5,000-20,000 square km | + + ++ + + | In Canada this DU is restricted to Kootenay Lake, Trout Lake and the Kootenay River to the Idaho border with British Columbia and between upstream of Bonnington Falls to Kootenai Falls in Montana for a range extent of 6,780 square km in Canada (COSEWIC 2012). | + + +F = 126-500 | + + ++ + + | + + + | 1,920 square km (COSEWIC 2012). | + + ++ + + + | A = 1 - 5 | + + +There are two over-wintering sites in Canada: Kootenay Lake and the delta of the Kootenay River; the only confirmed spawning site for this population is in the United States (COSEWIC 2012). | + + +A = None (zero) | + + ++ + + | Modification of habitat (e.g., Libby Dam) has changed the natural hydrography, altering spawning, egg incubation, and rearing habitats; and reducing overall biological productivity (USFWS 1999). These factors have contributed to the lack of recruitment in the population since the mid-1960's (USFWS 1999). Small population creates low genetic diversity (Apperson and Anders 1990). On-going water regulation and siltation due to the operation of hydroelectric dams has resulted in declines in habitat and habitat quality (COSEWIC 2012). | + + + +A = None | + + +Recovery plan for population within Canada and United States intends to manage and protect population for long-term (USFWS 1999). Fishing prohibited in Montana since 1974 and in British Columbia and Idaho since 1994 (USFWS 1999). Kootenai white sturgeon identified as endangered species in US (USFWS 1999). | + + +C = 250 - 1,000 individuals | + + +Population estimates for reproductive individuals in 2012 of approximately 960, assuming zero recruitment and an annual mortality rate of 0.04 (extrapolated from 2004 data estimates; COSEWIC 2012). Population estimates include fish on both sides of the Canadian border as this is a transboundary group that moves freely between Canadian and American waters. 2002 population estimated at 760 individuals (95% CI: 430 to 1,090) with 752 of those being adults with >70cm fork length (COSEWIC 2003e). 1997 population estimated at 1,468 adults (95% CI: 740 to 2,197) and 17 juveniles (Paragamian et al. 1997, cited by Duke 2001). Wild recruitment is very low and may be <20 fish per year (Ireland et al. 2002). |
+
+
+
+
+
+AB = Very high - high | + + +COSEWIC (2012) summarized the threats as recruitment failure, river regulation by impoundments; siltation due to an existing dam; low genetic diversity. There are uncertain benefits of hatchery propagation (use of wild fish as broodstock). Long term cumulative effects related primarily to construction and operation of the Libby Dam are suspected. These include low and reduced seasonal water flows, changes to water temperature and the species makeup of the community, loss of nutrient inputs and possibly siltation. Post spawning mortality factors are the primary long term threat, as evidenced by the absence of juveniles and young adults in the population (Apperson and Anders 1991, cited by Duke 2001). |
+
+
+
+AD = Decline of >50% | + + +COSEWIC (2012) estimates that there has been a decline of over 50% over the last three generations, with a decline of over 90% observed between 1978-2001 (COSEWIC 2012). Historically abundant, the population has been declining since construction of the Libby Dam in the early 1970's (Apperson and Anders 1991, cited by Duke 2001). Recent observations confirm the remaining wild population is largely comprised of adult individuals older than 25 years (Duke 1999; Ireland et al. 2000). Recruitment failure is suspected because despite spawning, significant survival past the egg stage has not been observed. Wild adult Kootenay River sturgeon can be expected to decline well into the future (Duke 2001). Hatcheries are seen as only viable option for stabilizing this population and preserving genetic diversity (Ireland et al. 2002). |
+
+
+A = Decline of >90% | + +There is an 80% chance of this population going extinct in the next 100 years (COSEWIC 2012). The Duncan and Slocan Lakes remnant populations will eventually be lost (COSEWIC 2012). Causes of decline are understood (i.e., habitat and flow changes due to dam construction and human alterations);.. | + + + +A=Highly vulnerable | + +This population is limited by low numbers of female spawners during any given year (Apperson and Anders 1990), therefore spawning may not occur on a yearly basis; few spawners to produce large numbers of eggs, therefore cannot replenish the population. This population is also genetically distinct, therefore supplementation efforts have to be careful not to reduce genetic viability (Apperson and Anders 1990). Kootenai white sturgeon have been observed to spawn (in US only) over shifting sand substrates, which may suffocate eggs and larvae, thus causing survival bottlenecks (Rust et al. 2004). | + + +A=Very narrow. Specialist or community with key requirements scarce. | + +Studies suggest that for optimum spawning, flows below Libby Dam should be held above 630 m3/s, ideally 1200 m3/s, with a temperature range of 9.5 to 12 'C (Paragamian and Wakkinen 2002). Spawning observed to stop with changes in water temperature over 0.8 'C (Paragamian et al. 2003); spawning ceased when water temperatures dropped below 8'C (Rust et al. 2004). | + + ++ + + + | Monitoring and evaluation of hatchery program required over long-term (Ireland et al. 2002). Studies required to determine the success of eggs/larve if adults moved to spawn in habitats with gravel/cobble substrates, as opposed to shifting sand substrates that are currently used (Rust et al. 2004). | + + +Inventory needs include confirming wild population size and composition in terms of year classes, wild versus hatchery reared individuals and wild fish spawning survival rates. Additional work is needed to confirm presence and population dynamics elsewhere in the Kootenay River Watershed i.e. Kootenay Lake, BC. Studies conducted in 2002, indicate that hatchery-reared juveniles have 60% survival rate in the first year of release and 90% in subsequent years (Ireland et al. 2002). | + + + +Protection measures including policy-based actions such as recovery plan development and implementation; communication and education programs and site-based habitat research. Immediate protection measures include maintaining and restoring existing habitat and identifying new protected areas. An experimental conservation fish culture facility has been established, at Bonner's Ferry, Idaho, operated by the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, backed up by a fail-safe facility at Fort Steele, B.C. Longer term protection measures include the restoration of natural recruitment (J. Ptolemy, pers. comm.). Recovery plans have been established and in-place since 1999 (USFWS 1999). | + ++ + + + | P. Woodruff, L. Ramsay and L. M. Porto | + +April 25, 2018 | + + +
| + AFCAA01052 + | ++ Acipenser transmontanus pop. 2 + | + ++ + | White Sturgeon (Upper Columbia River Population) | + ++ + + + | S1 | + +December 01, 1994 | + + +April 24, 2018 | + +Relatively small population of individuals having little or no natural recruitment to the population. | + + + +E = 5,000-20,000 square km | + + ++ + + | Total of 12,190 square km (COSEWIC 2012). This DU is restricted to the mainstem Columbia River between the U.S. border and Revelstoke Dam in BC, here it encompasses about 425 km of the upper Columbia River. | + + +F = 126-500 | + + ++ + + | + + + | COSEWIC (2012) estimates the area of occupancy of to be 1760 square km. Arrow Lakes Reservoir: Linear distance of occupancy estimated at 163 km based on presence of tagged individuals in the reservoir (Golder Associates Ltd. 2005). Individuals are usually aggregated at Beaton Flats overwintering area. Transboundary group: Linear distance of occupancy estimated at 56 km, the distance from HLK to the Canada-US border (UCRWSRI 2002). Aggregations have been observed below HLK, Kootenay Eddy, Kootenay River confluence, Fort Shepherd Eddy, and Waneta Eddy (UCRWSRI 2002). |
+
+
++ + + + | B = 6 - 20 | + + +In the Canadian portion of the Columbia River, two groups of White Sturgeon are separated by Hugh L. Keenleyside Dam (HLK): i) Arrow Lakes Reservoir; and, ii) upper Columbia River below HLK (also known as the transboundary reach (UCRWSRI 2002). Movements across HLK are infrequent (R. L. & L. Environmental Services Ltd. 2000); observations of few sonic tagged individuals moving downstream of the Canada-US border (~70 km) (Golder Associates Ltd. 2004). There is one confirmed spawning site and four overwintering sites above HLK, and four confirmed spawning sites and six overwintering sites below HLK (COSEWIC 2012). |
+
+
+A = None (zero) | + + ++ + + | White Sturgeon in the Columbia River most likely had access and may have accessed the Pacific Ocean. However, habitat fragmentation due to the building of large hydroelectric facilities has created isolated populations (UCRWSRI 2002). There is almost complete failure of natural recruitment in this population of white sturgeon (UCRWSRI 2002). Data indicates that the population will decline to 50% within 10 years and 75% within 20 years, which will cause severe diversity bottlenecks (UCRWSRI 2002). This is more severe in the Arrow Lakes Reservoir group, since its population (estimated between 49 and 185 individuals (Golder Associates Ltd. 2005) is near the functional extinction level of 50 (UCRWSRI 2002). | + + + +A = None | + + +Recovery efforts (e.g., recovery initiative, broodstock collection, hatchery program, juvenile releases & monitoring) commenced in 2000 for the transboundary group (UCRWSRI 2002). Plans for managing the Arrow Lakes Reservoir group are currently unknown. | + + +C = 250 - 1,000 individuals | + + +Based on zero recruitment and a 0.04 mortality rate, these numbers have been extrapolated to 789 mature individuals below HLK, and 41 individuals above HLK, for a total of 830 reproductive individuals in 2012 (COSEWIC 2012). The transboundary population was estimated at 1400 individuals, based on mark-recapture data models (UCRWSRI 2002). More recent studies estimate the transboundary population at 1135 (95% CI of 905 to 1520) using survival rates (Golder Associates Ltd. 2003c). The Arrow Lakes Reservoir population is estimated between 49 and 189 individuals; based on mark-recapture data models (Golder Associates 2005). |
+
+
+
+
+
+B = High | + + +The effects of dam construction and ensuing river regulation and their combined effects on spawning and rearing habitat are undoubtedly the most serious contemporary threat to White Sturgeon in the Upper Columbia.Recent modelling and experimental work by McAdam (2012) has provided strong evidence of the causal mechanisms behind recruitment failure in regulated rivers. The White Sturgeon is a fluvial species and, although it regularly occurs in large lakes, it requires flowing water to complete its life cycle (COSEWIC 2012). Both groups of white sturgeon are subject to threats of habitat degredation and loss through dams, impoundments, channelization, dyking and pollution (UCRWSRI 2002). |
+
+
+
+E = Decline of 30-50% | + + +COSEWIC (2012) estimates the decline to be approximately 45% over the last three generations (40 years/generation). There is almost complete failure of natural recruitment in this population of white sturgeon (UCRWSRI 2002). Both groups consist of older adults. Younger age classes have not been present since 1966 and 1980 for the Arrow Lakes Reservoir (ALR) and transboundary groups respectively (UCRWSRI 2002; Golder Associates Ltd. 2005). Data indicates that the population may decline to 50% within 10 years and 75% within 20 years, which may cause severe diversity bottlenecks (UCRWSRI 2002). This is more severe in the ALR group, since its population (estimated between 49 and 185 individuals; Golder 2005 in prep) is near the functional extinction level of 50 (UCRWSRI 2002). |
+
+
+AD = Decline of >50% | + +COSEWIC (2012) estimates that the decline of Upper Columbia white sturgeon has been greater than 50%, and at least 45% over the last three generations. This population is projected to decline more than 95% over the next three generations (COSEWIC 2012). For the transboundary group, trends from 1993 projected to 2025 (using initial population of 1135 in 1993) estimate population declines to under 400 individuals (Golder Associates Ltd. 2003c). See also Short-Term Trend. |
+
+
+
+A=Highly vulnerable | + +White sturgeon are highly vulnerable species due to their longevity, late sexual maturation, and long spawning interval times. In the Columbia River population, mature males were observed to be smaller (106 to 207 cm FL) and younger (16 to 46 years) than females (137 to 271 cm FL; 27 to 65 years) (UCRWSRI 2002). The UCRWSRI committee (2002) indicates that the female spawning interval in the upper Columbia River was much greater than the 3 years reported for the lower Columbia in the United States. Even though spawning is observed yearly in the transboundary group (UCRWSRI 2002), a lack of recruitment does not allow any recovery from population losses. | + + +C=Moderate. Generalist or community with some key requirements scarce. | + +White sturgeon are highly adapted to riverine systems and are opportunistic feeders (UCRWSRI 2002). Populations throughout the Columbia and Kootenay river systems display a broad range of environmental preferences, however, it is not known if preferred habitats have been reduced in these systems. The upper Columbia River population may have spawning cues based on water temperature and/or discharge (R. L. & L. Environmental Services Ltd. 2001), however, it is not known how changes to these cues due to river regulation has impacted spawn timing and periodicity. | + + ++ + + + | The UCRWSRI (2002) has identified several research requirements including: i) water management (e.g., flow augmentation, defining flow requirements for spawning, assessing impacts of reservoir operations on early life stages); ii) water quality (e.g., impacts of dissolved gas on larval stages, turbidity augmentation to reduce predation on eggs and larvae, impacts of low water temperatures on early life stages); iii) contaminants (e.g., identify all sources in the Columbia River, assess concentrations in sturgeon and habitats, assess physiological effects on growth, survival and reproduction); iv) habitat (e.g., largescale changes in habitat associated with basin development, feasibility of restoring habitats, passage, increasing productivity); and v) population assessment (e.g., continued stock assessment/spawn monitoring/juvenile assessment, assess other remnant populations, recruitment bottlenecks, genetic baseline, disease/parasites). | + + +Inventory of this population has been on-going since the early 1990's. The UCRWSRI (2002) indicated that continued assessment of the adult stock, as well as yearly spawn monitoring and juvenile indexing is necessary for the recovery of this population. | + + + ++ + | 1) Existing restrictions on commercial and recreational fishing. 2) Monitoring and enforcement of illegal harvest. 3) Water management and modifications of river regulation by dams and impoundments. 4) Remediation of pollution sources. 5) Control of exotics and prevention of introductions. 5) Conservation aquaculture (in progress by UCRWSRI). 6) Monitoring of population status, critical habitats and threats. (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2004). | + + + +P. Woodruff, L.M. Porto and L. Ramsay | + +April 24, 2018 | + + +
| + AFCAA01054 + | ++ Acipenser transmontanus pop. 4 + | + ++ + | White Sturgeon (Lower Fraser River Population) | + ++ + + + | S1S2 | + +April 24, 2018 | + + +April 24, 2018 | + +The vast majority of the fish occurs in a small area and number of locations in the lower Fraser River Valley, an area undergoing rapid growth and development. Habitat degradation is continuing, and fish are subject to mortality as by-catch in the commercial salmon fisheries, as well as being targeted in the catch and release fishery (COSEWIC 2012). | + + + +DE = 1,000-20,000 square km | + + +3798 | + + +This population occurs from the Fraser estuary upstream to a potential barrier (Hells Gate) located about 200 km upstream from the sea. The range extent when including the mainstem Fraser River only (most common habitat, probably where all spawning occurs): 3,798 km2. If Pitt and Harrison lakes are included: 6,177 km2 (COSEWIC 2012). | + + +G = 501-2,500 | + + ++ + + | EF = 101-2,000 | + + +Including only mainstem Fraser River: 804 km2; including Pitt and Harrison lakes as well: 1, 492 km2 (COSEWIC 2012). | + + ++ + + + | AB = 1 - 20 | + + +There are 4 confirmed spawning sites and 2-3 likely but unconfirmed sites. There also are at least 2 major and several minor over-wintering sites (COSEWIC 2012). | + + +BC = 1 - 12 | + + ++ + + | The abundance of white sturgeon in the area below Hell's Gate is relatively large and may be increasing as it recovers from over-harvest. However, abundance in this area is most likely well below its most productive level (Walters et al. 2005). There has been an increase in the number of adults, with a projected incrase of 5-10% over the next 3 generations; however, there has been a decline in the number of juveniles. An increase in reporductive adults indicates that at least some of the locations should be of good integrity (COSEWIC 2012). | + + + +A = None | + + +No harvest has been permitted since 1994. This species is currently listed under the Canadian Species at Risk Act in Schedule 3 as Special Concern. | + + +EF = 2,500 - 100,000 individuals | + + +Recent mark-recapture estimates indicate approximately 8,460 reproductive individuals; alternative estimates could be as high as 15,000 (COSEWIC 2012). There is an estimate of 44,713 total fish for 2011. 2004 population estimated at approximately 60,000 fish between 40 cm and 220 cm with evidence of an increasing population over the 2000-2004 study period. Number of individuals of reproductive age (140 cm or larger) is estimated at about 9,000 (Maximum Likelihood Estimate) based on continued mark-recapture studies (Nelson et al. 2004). Walters et al. (2005) indicates that the minimum estimate of abundance of 60 cm+ sturgeon is between 40,000 and 60,0000 individuals. |
+
+
+
+
+
+AB = Very high - high | + + +Major threats include: loss or degradation of habitat from the elimination of sloughs, side channels and wetlands, dyking, channelization, dredging, gravel mining and contamination. Poaching and by-catch from other fisheries are also a threat (COSEWIC 2012). The emerging commercial aquaculture industry could have impacts, if it is not managed appropriately (concerns include facility placement and containment, security, access to wild broodstock or the importation of non-native stocks, and the possibility of masking and enhancing the market for illegally caught wild fish or their products (COSEWIC 2003). There is no direct evidence from the mark-recapture study of cumulative mortality due to repeated catch and release associated with the recreational fishery (Walters et al. 2005). |
+
+
+
+E = Decline of 30-50% | + + +COSEWIC (2012) estimates a decline of approximately 45% over the last three generations (35 years/generation), using Whitlock's (2007) analysis; Walters et al. (2006) estimates a decline up to 55%. From 2004-2011, there was an increase in the number of adults (from 4550 to 8460; COSEWIC 2012). Nelson et al. (2012) reported a 77% increase in the numbers of adult sturgeon from ~4,550 to 8,090 between 2004 and 2011 although wide confidence intervals on yearly estimates were present and the overall trend was not significant (r = 0.12, P = 0.73) (in COSEWIC 2012). The impact of the historical fishery varies depending on the interpretation of data available for the commercial sturgeon fishery (only total weight of landings was recorded). Under some scenarios using stock reduction analysis, Walters et al. (2005) were able to show that the numbers of fish removed may have been higher between 1960-80 due to interception in the commercial chinook gill net fishery; this is based on the assumption that the average size of the fish harvested in the early fishery was much greater than it was for those intercepted in the later salmon fishery. Catch data suggest the abundance of small fish (1-7 years) has been rapidly increasing since 2000; age and size composition data suggest relatively healthy numbers of older fish in the population that is either stable or increasing (Walters et al. 2005). |
+
+
+BD = Decline of 50-90% | + +White sturgeon in the lower part of the river provided an important commercial fishery in the late 1800s and early 1900's; the annual harvest peaked at 517 tonnes and collapsed to 20 tonnes in 1905 due to overharvest (Echols 1995). Walters et al. (2006) estimate that the Lower Fraser white sturgeon population has declined by at least 50% since the late 1800's; Walters et al. (2005) suggests that the current egg production is only 10% of what the unexploited population was producing. | + + + +A=Highly vulnerable | + +Late age of maturation, slow growth, and long life span make this species extremely vulnerable. | + + +A=Very narrow. Specialist or community with key requirements scarce. | + +Adapted to free flowing, large, fast, turbid rivers. | + + +The scientific or appreciative value of this large, ancient species as part of our natural heritage can not be quantified. It is representative of an ancient lineage that is largely extinct; almost all of the remaining species are at risk (COSEWIC 2003). | + + + +Additional information on life-history traits (including anadromy), habitat use and catch-and-release mortality studies are required to determine appropriate management strategies. The importance of the declines in forage species populations to recruitment should be determined. Information is required on the influence of abiotic and biotic factors on spawning and subsequent recruitment success. | + + +Regular population monitoring is needed to inform management practices. | + + + +Maintenance of spawning substrates and access to spawning and juvenile rearing habitat, and protection of water quality and quantity are required. | + ++ + + + | Woodruff, P, L. Ramsay and J. Ptolomy | + +April 04, 2018 | + + +
| + AFCAA01055 + | ++ Acipenser transmontanus pop. 5 + | + ++ + | White Sturgeon (Upper Fraser River Population) | + ++ + + + | S2 | + +June 04, 2018 | + + +April 19, 2018 | + +There are declines and contiuing recruitment failure in the Nechako portion of the designatable unit and localized habitat degradation (such as increased siltation and changes in hydrology). This is a small population representing a unique gene pool with relatively low genetic diversity. | + + + +F = 20,000-200,000 square km | + + +23 390 | + + +This population inhabits the upper reaches of the Fraser River, from the confluence of the Nechako River upstream past the Morkill River, northwest of McBride; they also occur in the lower reaches of large tributaries including of the Bowron, McGregor and Torpy rivers (Yarmish and Toth 2002). The estimated extent of occurrence is about 23, 390 square km (COSEWIC 2012). | + + +G = 501-2,500 | + + +1602 | + + ++ + + | The area of occupancy is estimated at 6,408 square km (COSEWIC 2012). -1602 grid cells | + + ++ + + + | AB = 1 - 20 | + + +There is 1 confirmed and 12 suspected spawning sites, and at least 30 overwintering sites (COSEWIC 2012). | + + +C = 4 - 12 | + + ++ + + | The population appears to be naturally low in abundance. These fish are at the northern most extension of the species range and likely have the slowest growth rate and latest age of maturity of all white sturgeon populations. The populations in the Middle and Upper Fraser are stable; however, there has been no recruitment in the Nechako River since the construction of the Kenney Dam (COSEWIC 2012). The Middle Fraser habitat is good, although there is concern about the effects of pulp mills, while the Upper Fraser habitat is close to pristine (COSEWIC 2012). | + + + +A = None | + + +There are no protected areas. The sport fishery became catch-and-release in 1994. | + + +D = 1,000 - 2,500 individuals | + + +Population estimates for reproductive individuals of 749 for Middle Fraser, 185 in the Upper Fraser, and 336 in the Nechako River for a total of 1270 (COSEWIC 2012). | + + + + + +BC = High - medium | + + +Pollution from pulp mills, increased siltation and changes in hydrology due to dam operations are all ongoing threats to this population (COSEWIC 2012). Potential threats include: ecosystem change; loss or degradation of habitat from changes in channel structure, including loss of spawning habitat or accessibility, and loss of juvenile rearing habitat; contamination; and, poaching as this is an isolated area. | + + + +F = Decline of 10-30% | + + +Age class distribution data reflect a healthy and sustainable population over the short term. Prevalence of young fish confirms successful reproduction is taking place. Size distribution data collected over a five year period beginning in 1995, indicated the population was comprised of approximately 60% juvenile fish, 30% sub-adults and 15% adults (RL& L Environmental 2000). This population may have naturally low numbers, as exploitation does not appear to be a major factor and habitat remains largely intact. COSEWIC (2012) estimates that the Middle and Upper Fraser populations have shown 0% decline over the last three generations, while the Nechako population had declined by approximately 58%. |
+
+
+F = Decline of 10-30% | + +There has been no commercial fishery or significant exploitation of this population. The Middle and Upper Fraser populations are believed to be relatively stable with recruitment happening, while the Nechako population is in severe decline due to recruitment failure (COSEWIC 2012). | + + + +A=Highly vulnerable | + +Late age of maturation and slow growth likely make this population vulnerable. | + + +A=Very narrow. Specialist or community with key requirements scarce. | + +Adapted to free flowing, large, fast, turbid rivers. | + + +Genetic studies initiated in 1997/98 confirmed this population represents a distinct genetic stock that is least diverse of all other groups in the Fraser River drainage (Pollard 2000). Biological accumulation of pollutants represents a serious concern relative to white sturgeon populations. Slow maturation rates observed in more northern stocks and long lived life history of the species, make the species susceptible to sub-lethal toxicity effects. These effects may be manifesting within the population in the form of spawning and/or rearing failures as individuals in the population age. | + + + +Additional information on life-history traits, habitat use and catch-and-release mortality studies and on the influence of abiotic and biotic factors on spawning and subsequent recruitment success are required to determine appropriate protection and management strategies. | + + +Continued monitoring of the reproductive success and demographics of the population are important for maintaining appropriate management prescriptions. | + + + +Protection of required resources including spawning and rearing habitat, water quality and quantity, and forage and migration needs is needed. | + +Continue to adapt management of the fishery and protection strategies as information is acquired. Enforcement of angling regulations is important to conservation. | + + + +Woodruff, P. , J. Ptolmy and L. R. Ramsay | + +March 15, 2018 | + + +
| + AFCJB01010 + | ++ Acrocheilus alutaceus + | + ++ + | Chiselmouth | + ++ + + + | S4 | + +May 15, 2019 | + + +May 15, 2019 | + +Chiselmouth has a spotty, relictual type of distribution in lakes and rivers over a large range (southern half) of B.C. Threats are include impacts from agriculture, forestry, and livestock grazing. | + + + +F = 20,000-200,000 square km | + + +103,000 | + + +Chiselmouth are found within warmer interior lakes and rivers in B.C (COSEWIC 2003ab, McPhail 2007). | + + +F = 126-500 | + + +96 | + + ++ + + | There are 96 2x2 km grid cells overlying CDC mapped occurrences; however that is an underestimate as there are many recent records that have not been included (Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy 2017, Fish Observations database accessed December 11, 2018). | + + ++ + + + | CD = 21 - 300 | + + ++ + + | U = Unknown | + + ++ + + | + + + + | A = None | + + ++ + + | F = 10,000 - 100,000 individuals | + + +COSEWIC (2003ab) estimates 10,000-30,000 mature individuals. | + + + + + +C = Medium | + + +Not known from reservoirs in B.C.; possibly threatened by future hydroelectric developments (e.g. Kettle River). They are a warmer water species so there is some speculation that they could benefit from potential water warming due to climate change (McPhail 2007). From COSEWIC 2003ab: "Cumulative impacts of agriculture, forestry, and livestock grazing may be impacting chiselmouth in some rivers (e.g. Okanagan, Nicola), and these impacts will likely get worse in the near future." | + + + +U = Unknown | + + +There is no real data on population trends of chiselmouth in British Columbia (COSEWIC 2003ab). | + + +U = Unknown | + +The fragmented distribution suggests that it may have been more widely distributed in the distant past. In the 1950's and 1960's many of the small lowland lakes in the Southern Okanagan were poisoned, since then, chislemouth only appear in the larger lakes and rivers and are not as widespread as they once were (McPhail 2007). | + + + +C=Not intrinsically vulnerable | + ++ + + | C=Moderate. Generalist or community with some key requirements scarce. | + ++ + + | + + + + | + + + | + + + + | + + | + + + + | Cannings, S.G., L.R. Ramsay and L. Gelling | + +November 17, 2007 | + + +
| + AFCJC02260 + | ++ Catostomus sp. 4 + | + ++ + | Salish Sucker | + ++ + + + | S2 | + +May 15, 2019 | + + +May 15, 2019 | + +Salish Sucker has a small, restricted range in the lower Fraser River Valley in southwest BC. This fish faces significant threats including severe hypoxia and habitat degradation. | + + + +D = 1,000-5,000 square km | + + +1709 | + + +The Salish Sucker is found in southwest BC from the lower Fraser River Valley (COSEWIC 2012m). | + + +E = 26-125 | + + +65 | + + ++ + + | Locations of Salish Sucker are in the lower Fraser and Nooksack drainages, including the Salmon River and other creek systems and their tributaries (COSEWIC 2002f). Since the 2002 COSEWIC report was published, four new populations have been discovered in Kent (Mountain Slough and Agassiz Slough) and in Chilliwack (Elk Creek/Hope Slough and Hopedale Slough). A population that was thought to be extirpated (Little Campbell River) was rediscovered in 2011 (COSEWIC 2012m). | + + ++ + + + | B = 6 - 20 | + + +As of 2018, the BC Conservation Data Centre has 13 occurrences mapped, based on a 10km separation distance. | + + +Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + | + + + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + | F = 10,000 - 100,000 individuals | + + +2018: Pearson (2004a in COSEWIC 2012m) reports the total number of mature individuals to be greater than 9,648 (note that populations at five of the 11 locations are unknown). 2010: Conservative estimates give 500 to a maximum of 5000 in various creeks, Peden (2002) estimates 7000 to 10000 total not including young of the year. |
+
+
+
+
+
+AB = Very high - high | + + +2018: Very high - high: "Salish Sucker populations appear to be most vulnerable to acute hypoxia and to habitat loss. These conditions are common throughout the range and result primarily from overapplication of fertilizers and manure, drainage, channelization, dredging and infilling activities associated with agriculture and residential land development. Hypoxia is difficult to address in the current regulatory and policy context and is likely the single largest threat. Although it is poorly known, predation by introduced species is currently considered only a moderate threat, as these species appear to have coexisted with Salish Sucker for a decade in some parts of their range. However, the ubiquity of introduced predators and their documented impacts on other species justifies the ranking of this threat as moderate. Habitat fragmentation is currently a moderate threat to Salish Sucker, but its impacts are poorly understood. Sediment deposition and toxicity (in the form of contaminated sediments) appear to be major threats in some, but not all, watersheds" (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2016c). 2010: Very high - high: Rapid urban expansion and agricultural pollution, riffle habitat is disappearing through ponding, siltation and dredging. Summer flows are decreasing with increases in drainage for agriculture and urbanization increases (Pearson 2000). |
+
+
+
+F = Decline of 10-30% | + + +2018. From COSEWIC (2012m): sufficient data is not available to quantify watershed trends or fluctuations. However, trends are known from Pepin Creek between 1999 and 2003. From 1999-2002, there were high densities of Salish Sucker in a main stem beaver pond, but in 2003 the habitat became nearly anoxic and appeared devoid of fish during the summer. Since then (2004, 2005 and 2011) the reach remains hypoxic and there are very few fish. A second reach in Pepin Creek (Gordon's Brook restoration site), has been monitored since 2002. Catch per unit effort increased from 2002-2004 but declined to near zero in 2007 with the onset of severe hypoxia. Since then, reed canary grass has been removed, and manure spreading in a field has stopped; oxygen and fish abundance has shown signs of rebound. (COSEWIC 2012m). 2010: Decline of 10-30%. Probably extirpated from one stream, declining in others. There has been zero or sporadic recruitment in many years (McPhail pers. comm. in Pearson 2000). |
+
+
+U = Unknown | + ++ + + + | C=Not intrinsically vulnerable | + +large numbers of eggs, protracted spawning period | + + +B=Narrow. Specialist or community with key requirements common. | + +They are most often found in slow currents over sand and silt substrate with in-stream vegetation and over-stream cover. Spawning occurs in riffle areas over fine gravel. Habitat characteristics summarized in Pearson (2000). | + + ++ + + + | + + + | More detailed knowledge is needed of spawning, rearing and over-wintering areas. | + + + +Creekside habitat needs to be secured. This includes riparian vegetation that provides the cover seemingly preferred by juveniles. | + ++ + + + | Cannings, S.G. L.R. Ramsay and L. Gelling | + +June 21, 2018 | + + +
| + AFCJB31X10 + | ++ Chrosomus eos x Chrosomus neogaeus + | + +Phoxinus eos x Phoxinus neogaeus | + +Northern Redbelly Dace X Finescale Dace | + ++ + + + | S2 | + +May 15, 2019 | + + +May 15, 2019 | + +Only three occurrences known; perhaps there are more but the hybrid origin of this population and its persistence despite the absence of one of the parent species makes it an uncommon and interesting biological event. | + + + +EF = 5,000-200,000 square km | + + ++ + + | "Previously known from Graveyard Creek, a tributary of the Pine River, near Chetwynd. Recently discovered in Tsinhia Lake, Fort Nelson River system..." (Cannings and Ptolemy 1998). | + + ++ + + | + + + | + + + | + + + | + + + + | A = 1 - 5 | + + +Records are from Torpid Creek, Tsinhia Lake and Graveyard Creek (Cannings and Ptolemy 1998; (Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy ? Knowledge Management ND; accessed April 25, 2019). | + + +Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + | + + + + | A = None | + + ++ + + | U = Unknown | + + ++ + + + + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + + +Restricted distribution may make the population vulnerable to disturbances such as logging. | + + + +U = Unknown | + + ++ + + | U = Unknown | + ++ + + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + ++ + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + ++ + + | The hybridogen nature of this population makes it very interesting and valuable biologically. | + + + ++ + + | Other hybrid populations should be searched for in northeastern British Columbia. | + + + ++ + | + + + + | Cannings, S.G., L. Gelling | + +April 29, 2019 | + + +
| + AFCHA01020 + | ++ Coregonus artedi + | + ++ + | Cisco | + ++ + + + | S2 | + +May 10, 2010 | + + +March 15, 2019 | + +Known from one lake in the province. There are limited threats and population assumed to be large and stable. | + + + +A = <100 square km | + + +48.3 | + + +Known only from Maxhamish Lake (48.3 sq. km surface ), in the Liard River drainage near the N.W.T. border. Area estimate from BC Ministry of Environment and Climate Change shapefile EAUBC_LAKES_ |
+
+
++ + + | 60 | + + +D = 21-100 | + + +Same as range extent; Maxhamish Lake is 48.3 sq. km Grid cells (1km x 1km) were used to calculate the area of occuppancy. Any cell that was occupied (even partially) by this species was counted. |
+
+
++ + + + | A = 1 - 5 | + + +Known from one site, Maxhamish Lake. | + + +B = 1 - 3 | + + ++ + + | High ecological inegrity; the one known site is located entirely within a Provincial Protected Area. It appears to have good viability. |
+
+
+
+B = 1 - 3 | + + +Located entirely within Maxhamish Lake Protected Area | + + +U = Unknown | + + +No records of sampling since 1999. Regularly found during gill netting in lake in late 1990's. |
+
+
+
+
+
+CD = Medium - low | + + +Maxhamish Lake is shallow (3-5 m) and will be susceptible to relatively rapid warming during extreme heat events, which are expected to become more frequent, intense and sustained due to global warming. Max sustained temperature tolerated by adult Cisco is about 20 C. Other threats are minimal at present, mainly due to the limited access to the lake. There is some fishing of Cisco. There is extensive mineral exploration and logging occurring in the north east of the province which means that access as well as potential pollutants may increase in time. | + + + +G = Relatively Stable (<=10% change) | + + +DeGisi (2000) found there was no indication of a reduction in population; however he does qualify with "one reconnaissance inventory does not provide an adequate basis for quantitative statements about the abundance of fish populations or how this may have changed with time". | + + +U = Unknown | + ++ + + + | U=Unknown | + ++ + + | U=Unknown | + ++ + + | + + + + | Hourly measurements of of summer temperature from several locations/depths in Maxhamish Lake using data loggers. | + + +Maxhamish Lake has apparently not been sampled for this species since 1999; sampling to confirm continued presence and relative abundance is recommended. Other lakes in this drainage should also be surveyed. | + + + +In terms of provincial biological diversity, Maxhamish Lake is deserving of protection. | + ++ + + + | Pearson, M. | + +May 21, 2010 | + + +
| + AFCHA01030 + | ++ Coregonus autumnalis + | + ++ + | Arctic Cisco | + ++ + + + | S1S2 | + +May 10, 2010 | + + +May 15, 2019 | + +There is only one occurrence of Arctic Cisco in BC (lower Liard River); threats are limited and the population is assumed to be stable. | + + + +B = 100-250 square km | + + ++ + + | Lower Liard River and its tributaries (McPhail 2007; Mccloud and O'Neil 1983). There is a report from the Petitot River, but was later deemed unconfirmed and not found in a recent survey (McPhail, O'Brian and DeGisi 1998). Prior to these studies the most southerly record of Arctic Cisco in the Mackenzie river drainage was at Fort Simpson, N.W.T., near the Liard River confluence (Hatfield et al. 1972). The upstream extent of movement in the Liard River is unknown; however, there is no major obstacle until the Grand Canyon of the Liard is encountered. McPhail (2007) mentions that it is not clear if this is a self-sustaining run, however there have been reproductive adults collected from 1978 to 1981 and others collected periodically since then. |
+
+
++ + + | + + + | E = 101-500 | + + ++ + + | + + + + | A = 1 - 5 | + + +Only known from the Lower Liard River and its tributaries (McPhail 2007; Mccloud and O'Neil 1983). There is a report from the Petitot River, but was later deemed unconfirmed and not found in a recent survey (McPhail, O'Brian and DeGisi 1998). All individuals are anadromous, spawning unconfirmed in BC, though individuals in spawning condition have been observed (McPhail 2007) | + + +Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + | There is no reason to think river has not retained its ecological integrity, however, no information to determine viability of population. | + + + +A = None | + + ++ + + | U = Unknown | + + ++ + + + + + | C = Medium | + + +2010 rank assessment: BC Hydro has listed the Liard Canyon as a potential dam site. There is extensive mineral exploration and logging occurring in the north east of the province which means that access as well as potential pollutants may increase in time. The introduction of exotic fish is a potential threat (Haas 1998). There are also the inherant risks associated with any single population. | + + + +U = Unknown | + + ++ + + | U = Unknown | + ++ + + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + ++ + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + ++ + + | + + + + | Determine the taxonomic and biogeographic relationships of the BC population with those elsewhere in its range, obtain biological and life history information as well as identify specific riskd (if any) (Haas 1998). | + + +Population assessments required for the Liard River. Inventory similar Arctic souce river systems in the area to determine if there are other runs in BC. | + + + ++ + | Determine if specific fishing regulations are required. At present, regulations refer to a limit for all whitefish combined. | + + + +Ramsay, L. and Pollard, S. | + +May 25, 2010 | + + +
| + AFCHA01090 + | ++ Coregonus nasus + | + ++ + | Broad Whitefish | + ++ + + + | S2 | + +May 15, 2019 | + + +May 15, 2019 | + +There is only a single occurrence of Broad Whitefish in B.C. (Teslin Lake). | + + + +B = 100-250 square km | + + ++ + + | Found only in Teslin Lake, which spans the border of BC and the Yukon. | + + +E = 26-125 | + + +36 | + + ++ + + | The B.C. portion of Teslin Lake is approximately 147 square kilometres. | + + ++ + + + | A = 1 - 5 | + + +Found in one location, Teslin Lake. | + + +Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + | + + + + | A = None | + + +Neither the fish or the lake have protected status. | + + +U = Unknown | + + +Common in this large lake. | + + + + + +U = Unknown | + + +Limited distribution. Threats have not been assessed; however, there is the potential for over-fishing. | + + + +U = Unknown | + + ++ + + | G = Relatively Stable (<=10% change) | + +No evidence any decline or increase. | + + + +Rank Factor not assessed | + ++ + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + ++ + + | + + + + | + + + | + + + + | + + | + + + + | Gelling, L., Ramsay, L. and Pollard, S. | + +May 15, 2019 | + + +
| + AFC4E02010 + | ++ Cottus aleuticus + | + ++ + | Coastrange Sculpin | + ++ + + + | S5 | + +May 11, 2010 | + + +May 15, 2019 | + +Large range and # occurrences | + + + +G = 200,000-2,500,000 square km | + + ++ + + | McPhail 2007 | + + ++ + + | + + + | + + + | + + + | + + + + | E = > 300 | + + ++ + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + | + + + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + + + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + ++ + + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + ++ + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + ++ + + | + + + + | + + + | + + + + | + + | + + + + | + + | + + + |
| + AFC4E02270 + | ++ Cottus aleuticus pop. 1 + | + +Cottus aleuticus Cottus sp. 2 |
+
+Coastrange Sculpin, Cultus Population | + +Cultus Lake Sculpin Cultus Pygmy Sculpin |
+
+
+
+S1S2 | + +May 11, 2010 | + + +May 15, 2019 | + +Cultus Pygmy Sculpin is restricted to a single lake in southwestern B.C., which makes it highly vulnerable to any ecological change. | + + + +A = <100 square km | + + +6 | + + +Found only in Cultus Lake (surface area of about 627 ha), B.C. A similar sculpin is known from Lake Washington, Washington State, but this is an independent, parallel evolution (McPhail and Lindsey 1986). | + + +D = 6-25 | + + +24 | + + ++ + + | Since about 12% of Cultus Lake is considered littoral, 88% could be defined as offshore habitat (COSEWIC 2003d). Therefore, the area of occupancy is at least 5.5 km² (i.e., 88% of 6.3 km²). The index of area of occupancy (IAO) is 24 km² based on a 2 x 2 km grid and 14 km² based on a 1 x 1 km grid (COSEWIC 2010j). | + + ++ + + + | A = 1 - 5 | + + +Restricted to one lake, Cultus Lake. | + + +U = Unknown | + + ++ + + | Cultus Lake, located in the heavily populated lower mainland, is heavily used for residential and recreational purposes, however we do not have information on viability. | + + + +A = None | + + +Part of the lakeshore is included in Cultus Lake Provincial Park and Cultus Lake Municipal Park. | + + +U = Unknown | + + +Unknown, a targeted population estimate has never been done. "The presence of Coastrange Sculpin (Cultus Population) in Cultus Lake is known from their occurrence in both stomach samples taken from piscivorous fish (Ricker 1960) and mid?water trawl sets performed to enumerate juvenile Sockeye Salmon (Jeremy Hume, unpublished data)." (COSEWIC 2010j) | + + + + + +AC = Very high - medium | + + +"The major threat to Coastrange Sculpin (Cultus Population) is its limited distribution and susceptibility to ecological changes to Cultus Lake resulting from the decline of the Sockeye Salmon population, the potential introduction of invasive species, and the impacts of development on water quality." (COSEWIC 2010j) | + + + +G = Relatively Stable (<=10% change) | + + +"...trawl surveys conducted to assess the abundance of juvenile Sockeye Salmon in Cultus Lake from 1975 to 2004 suggest a trend of total population declines of Coastrange Sculpin (Cultus Population) of between 2.5 and 4%." (COSEWIC 2010j) | + + +G = Relatively Stable (<=10% change) | + +In the past 70 years, Cultus Lake's limnetic habitat has had little change; however, the lake's average monthly water temperatures were about 1-2 degrees warmer in 2001-2002 than between 1927-1937 and measures of productivity are higher now (COSEWIC 2010j). | + + + +B=Moderately vulnerable | + +Inferred from age of first spawning and habitat. | + + +A=Very narrow. Specialist or community with key requirements scarce. | + +Inferred from known distribution. | + + ++ + + + | Strategies and techniques on how to deal with exotic introductions and monitor population trends need to be developed. | + + +Although numbers are assumed to be stable, there is insufficient data to determine population trends. | + + + +An exotic species management plan including a plan for emergency action should be developed to deal with potentially harmful introductions. | + ++ + + + | Ptolemy, J. and Pollard, S. | + +May 25, 2010 | + + +
| + AFC4E02090 + | ++ Cottus confusus + | + ++ + | Shorthead Sculpin | + ++ + + + | S3 | + +May 15, 2019 | + + +May 15, 2019 | + +There are few Shorthead Sculpin occurrences within a small portion of the Columbia River. Major threats include fluctuating water levels and temperatures, sedimentation eutrophication, pollution and aquatic invasive species. | + + + +D = 1,000-5,000 square km | + + +2572 | + + +In B.C., there are three populations of Shorthead Sculpin occuring in the Columbia, Kootenay/Slocan and Kettle river system; the total extent of occurrence is 2,572 km2 (COSEWIC 2010l). | + + ++ + + | 245 | + + +E = 101-500 | + + +Based on the lengths of rivers and creeks known to contain this species and overlaying a 1 x 1 km grid, the Index of the area of occupancy is estimated to be 245 km² (COSEWIC 2010l) | + + ++ + + + | B = 6 - 20 | + + +There are approximately 13 locations: one is in the Columbia River and five tributaries, three are in the Slocan River and three tributaries and one is in the Kettle River (COSEWIC 2010l). | + + +Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + | + + + + | U = Unknown | + + +Beaver Creek Provincial Park protects immediate habitat, but not upstream habitat or the fish themselves. | + + +U = Unknown | + + +"Population estimates in 2015 were 2,093 individuals in Norns Creek and 309 in Beaver Creek (Amec 2016). No Shorthead Sculpin were found in Champion Creek during the same survey (Amec 2016). There are no quantitative data available on the numbers of Shorthead Sculpin in other B.C." (Department of Fisheries and Oceans 2018i). "Existing data on abundance are scarce and mostly anecdotal." (COSEWIC 2010l). | + + + + + +C = Medium | + + +Threats were assessed during the development of the proposed 2018 Management Plan (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2018i). Threats include "increased periods of low flow resulting from water extraction (current and anticipated threat, low level of concern); sudden significant alteration of hydrograph from flow regulation (current threat); increased maximum summer water temperature (current and anticipated threat); sedimentation from agriculture, forestry and urbanization (historical and current threat); eutrophication from agriculture and urbanization (current and anticipated threat); harmful substances from mining and industrial activities (historical and unknown threat); and, aquatic invasive species (current and anticipated threat)." | + + + +G = Relatively Stable (<=10% change) | + + +"No quantitative data are available on the numbers of Shorthead Sculpins in BC; however, the populations appear to be stable. This stability is inferred from casual collections made over the years -- they are still found at all the sites where they were collected in the past, including the 5 km of the Kettle River where they were first collected more than 60 years ago." (COSEWIC 2010l) | + + +U = Unknown | + ++ + + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + ++ + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + ++ + + | This species is very difficult to identify. | + + + ++ + + | + + + + | + + | + + + + | Cannings, S.G.; Gelling, L. | + +October 10, 2018 | + + +
| + AFC4E02053 + | ++ Cottus hubbsi + | + +Cottus bairdi hubbsi | + +Columbia Sculpin | + ++ + + + | S3 | + +May 09, 2001 | + + +May 15, 2019 | + +Columbia Sculpin has a small distribution within the Columbia River basin; major threats include drought, urbanization, development and impacts from mining activities. | + + + +E = 5,000-20,000 square km | + + +17,593 | + + +Columbia Sculpin is restricted to parts of the Columbia River and it's tributaries in south-central B.C. In the Columbia River it is found from the Keenleyside Dam near Castelgar to the U.S. border. Tributaries include the Kettle River, the Similkameen River and Tulameen River (COSEWIC 2010m). | + + +F = 126-500 | + + +972 | + + ++ + + | The index of total area of occupancy is 972 square kiometres, calculated by overlaying a 2km x 2km grid over the known locations (COSEWIC 2010m). | + + ++ + + + | C = 21 - 80 | + + +COSEWIC (2010m) describes 21 locations in Canada divided into the following populations: Columbia (6 locations), Kootenay/Slocan (5 locations), Bonnington (1 location), Kettle (1 location) and Similkameen (8 locations). | + + +Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + | + + + + | A = None | + + +"There are no habitat protection provisions specifically for Columbia sculpin, however, the fish habitat protection provisions of the Fisheries Act provide protection for Columbia sculpin, and the BC Forest and Range Practices Act has provisions to protect fish habitat from forestry and range activities." (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2012). | + + +U = Unknown | + + +There are no current quantitative data on population numbers (COSEWIC 2010m). | + + + + + +C = Medium | + + +Columbia Sculpin have a restricted distribution and are vulnerable to a variety of threats including flow regulation, consumptive water uses, point and non-point pollution, introduction of non-native species, and climate change." (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2012). COSEWIC (2010m) describes major threats as drought, urbanization, industrial development, and mining activities. | + + + +G = Relatively Stable (<=10% change) | + + +The reduction in the total number of mature individuals over the last 10 years is about 2.5 %. It appears to be declining in small streams where it has previously occurred - for example, part of Otter Creek that used to support fish, has gone dry in the summers over recent years (COSEWIC 2010m). | + + +U = Unknown | + +"The historic distribution in Canada is assumed to be similar to its present-day distribution, but habitat alterations from flow regulation have been significant in the Columbia and Kootenay Rivers, and it is possible that historic distribution differed. The historic distribution also included several lakes in the Similkameen system that were poisoned as part of fisheries enhancement projects in the 1950s (McPhail 2007)." (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2012). | + + + +Rank Factor not assessed | + ++ + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + ++ + + | + + + + | + + + | "The streams in Gladstone Provincial Park have never been sampled and it is possible that the lower reaches of Sander and Troy creeks might contain Columbia Sculpins." (COSEWIC 2010m). | + + + ++ + | + + + + | Gelling, L. | + +October 19, 2018 | + + +
| + AFC4E02380 + | ++ Cottus sp. 9 + | + ++ + | Rocky Mountain Sculpin | + ++ + + + | S2 | + +May 15, 2019 | + + +May 15, 2019 | + +Rocky Mountain Sculpin (Cottus sp. 9), occupies a small number of locations within a small range (<300km2) within the Flathead River and it's tributaries in southeast BC. Current, significant threats include sedimentation from road building and all-terrain vehicle usage. | + + + +C = 250-1,000 square km | + + +270 | + + +Rocky Mountain Sculpin, Westslope designatable unit ("Rocky Mountain Sculpin") is found within the lower 28km of the Flathead River and nine of it's tributaries in southeast BC (COSEWIC 2010i). | + + ++ + + | 78 | + + +D = 21-100 | + + +The index of area of occupancy of Rocky Mountain Sculpin in BC is estimated to be 148 km2 using a 2x2 km grid and 78 km2 when using a 1x1 km grid overlay (COSEWIC 2010i). | + + ++ + + + | B = 6 - 20 | + + +Rocky Mountain Sculpin occurs about 28 km of the lower Flathead River in BC, as well as in the lower reaches of the following Flathead River tributaries: Kishinena, Sage, Couldrey, Burnham, Howell, Cabin, Commerce, Middlepass (Haig), and Harvey creeks (COSEWIC 2010i). Natureserve methodology suggests a distance of 10km between element occurrences (in both suitable and unsuitable habitat) (NatureServe 2017, accessed June 28, 2017). | + + +Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + | + + + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + + +The federal Fisheries Act provides general protection for aquatic habitats in the Flathead Valley (COSEWIC 2010i). | + + +U = Unknown | + + +From COSEWIC (2010i): this species has been collected sporadically in the Flathead drainage system since 1955; however, the collections (even from the same site) are not comparable because the collecting techniques and effort differ. All that can be inferred about abundance is that the species is still present in the reaches of the Flathead River where it was originally collected and, at these sites, it is still easy to collect. | + + + + + +BC = High - medium | + + +The most immediate threat to Rocky Mountain Sculpin in B.C. is sedimentation from road building associated with logging and mining and all terrain vehicle use. Pollution and infrastructure from mining activities pose significant threats (COSEWIC 2010i). | + + + +G = Relatively Stable (<=10% change) | + + +The distribution of Rocky Mountain Sculpin in BC has not changed since the earliest collection in 1955. This suggests that there has probably not been a major change in numbers over the past 30 years (COSEWIC 2010i). | + + +U = Unknown | + ++ + + + | B=Moderately vulnerable | + +Rocky Mountain Sculpin are relatively relatively short-lived (five to seven years). Sexual maturity in females is reached in two to three years and in males in two years (COSEWIC 2010i). | + + +C=Moderate. Generalist or community with some key requirements scarce. | + +This stream-dwelling species typically shelters in riffles and runs with moderate surface velocities and loose rock substrates (COSEWIC 21010i). | + + ++ + + + | + + + | + + + + | + + | + + + + | Gelling, L. | + +June 28, 2018 | + + +
| + AFCJB06010 + | ++ Couesius plumbeus + | + ++ + | Lake Chub | + ++ + + + | S5 | + +January 31, 1992 | + + +May 15, 2019 | + +Lake Chub are a common species with low threats, found throughout B.C. | + + + +G = 200,000-2,500,000 square km | + + ++ + + | In BC, lake chub occur in all major drainages: Columbia, Fraser, Skeena, Peace, Liard, Stikine, Taku and Yukon; however, they are only rarely found within 100km of the coast (McPhail 2007), and have not been recorded on Vancouver Island or Haida Gwaii (Scott and Crossman 1973). This area comprises the majority of the land mass of BC (i.e., 944,000km2). | + + +U = Unknown | + + ++ + + | U = Unknown | + + +The area of occupancy for lake chub in BC is unknown. They are found in a range of habitats from large turbid rivers to small streams, ponds to large lakes (McPhail 2007). | + + ++ + + + | E = > 300 | + + +The lake chub appear to be found in many locations across BC (FISS(2011) includes 433 recorded occurrences in different water bodies). | + + +F = >125 | + + ++ + + | Lake chub are ubiquitous in the Interior Plateau and in the northeastern portion of the province (of which there are over 200 recorded occurrences; also McPhail 2007) and so it is likely that these areas provide good viability. However, lake chub form scattered, isolated populations at the southern end of its BC range (McPhail 2007) and so it is unknown if these sites still provide good viability. | + + + +Rank Factor not assessed | + + +The lake chub is relatively abundant and widespread, and likely occurs in provincial parks in BC, but the number of protected locations is unknown. | + + +GH = 100,000 to >1,000,000 individuals | + + +As the lake chub is often the numerically dominant species in a waterbody (McPhail 2007), and it occurs in 433 different water bodies, it is likely that there are over one million fish in BC, but the exact number of lake chub present in BC is unknown. | + + + + + +D = Low | + + +The threats to lake chub have been calculated to be low using the IUCN calculator. Lake chub are abundant and widepread across North America, and are found in all major drainages in BC (McPhail 2007). There appears to be little concern about the conservation of lake chub as a species, as lake chub has a wide distribution, often high local abundance, and occurs in a wide variety of habitats (COSEWIC 2004). However, lake chub occurs throughout northern BC, where it could be negatively affected by any increase in oil and gas development or mining. As it is a cold water adapted species, an overall increase in temperatures could reduce its range. Use of rotenone in the 1950s and 1960s extirpated lake chub from several water bodies (McPhail 2007). It is unknown if the construction of any new dams or resultant change in water management will affect lake chub. | + + + +G = Relatively Stable (<=10% change) | + + +The abundance trend of lake chub is unknown, but believed to be stable, as it is found in many different locations throughout BC and is believed to be one of the more numerous fish in many water bodies (McPhail 2007). | + + +U = Unknown | + +The long term trend for the lake chub in the Interior Plateau and northeastern area of the Province is unknown but believed to be stable, as the lake chub in those regions are very abundant (McPhail 2007). However, many lake chub populations were eradicated with rotenone in the 1950s and 1960s, which resulted in scattered and isolated populations in southern BC (McPhail 2007); therefore, it is believed that the lake chub populations in the south-central portion of the province have declined. | + + + +C=Not intrinsically vulnerable | + +Lake chub mature at the end of their second summer or the beginning of their third summer; females can produce up to 10,000 eggs (McPhail 2007). The lake chub is found throughout BC and in a variety of habitats (McPhail 2007) and therefore it is believed to have relatively high dispersal capability. | + + +D=Broad. Generalist or community with all key requirements common. | + +Lake chub appear to be adapted to cold water habitats (COSEWIC 2004). Lake chub are primarily lacustrine at the southern edge of BC, but occur in a variety of habitats elsewhere in the province, including mainstems of large turbid rivers, tiny rivulets, small eutrophic ponds, and large oligotrophic lakes (McPhail 2007) | + + ++ + + + | A lot of the material used to describe the life history and biology of lake chub in McPhail (2007) was from studies conducted in Saskatchewan and the eastern United States. Preliminary molecular data suggests that there are major sequence differences between BC and Ontario lake chub populations (McPhail 2007). | + + +The actual number of lake chub in BC is unknown; no quantitative data on their habitat use in BC is available (McPhail 2007). | + + + +The actual number of lake chub in BC is unknown; no quantitative data on their habitat use in BC is available (McPhail 2007). The taxonomy of lake chub is unclear, there could be as many as three separate subspecies, with possibly two subspecies in BC (McPhail 2007). | + ++ + + + | 2011: Patricia Woodruff (checked by S. Pollard) | + +February 18, 2011 | + + +
| + AFCJB06012 + | ++ Couesius plumbeus pop. 2 + | + +Couesius plumbeus pop. 1 | + +Lake Chub - Liard Hot Springs Populations | + +Lake Chub - Hotsprings Ecotype | + + + +S1S2 | + +May 15, 2019 | + + +May 15, 2019 | + +This population of Lake Chub occurrs only within the Liard and Deer River hotsprings, within a range of less than 12 km2. Significant threats include the introduction of non-native fish and pollutants from recreational use within the pools. | + + + +A = <100 square km | + + +12 | + + +The Liard Hot Springs Lake Chub population is found only in the Liard and Deer River Hot Springs, in the upper Liard River sytem in B.C. The estimated extent of occurrence is approximately 12 km2 (COSEWIC 2018g). | + + +C = 3-5 | + + +4 | + + ++ + + | The Liard Hot Springs complex is isolated from other streams, and Lake Chub are associated with the Liard Hot Spring?s Alpha and Delta-Epsilon complexes (COSEWIC 2018g). | + + ++ + + + | A = 1 - 5 | + + +This population occurs in the Liard and Deer River Hot Springs complexes in the upper Liard River. | + + +Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + | + + + + | B = 1 - 3 | + + +Two populations are located within provincial parks: the Liard River population is located within Liard Hotsprings Provincial Park (COSEWIC 2018g). The Deer River population is located within the Liard River Corridor Provincial Park (COSEWIC 2018g). The two sites are protected by the Park Act of BC that sets management guidelines and restricts resource extraction (COSEWIC 2018g). | + + +U = Unknown | + + +It is estimated that the Liard Hot Springs Lake Chub may number in the thousands (COSEWIC 2018g). However, sex ratios are female-biased and effective population size may be much smaller than the total number of individuals (COSEWIC 2018g). | + + + + + +BD = High - low | + + +The main threats to this population include the introduction of non-native fish and recreational activities, such as the addition of camping fuel, lotions, oils and soaps into the pools (COSEWIC 2018g). | + + + +U = Unknown | + + +No data available (COSEWIC 2018g). | + + +U = Unknown | + +When the parking lot was constructed within the Liard provincial park, a few hundred fish were killed; however, long-term trend is unknown (COSEWIC 2018g). There is no information on the population size or trend for the Deer River Hot Springs population due to ts remoteness and difficulty in accessing the site (COSEWIC 2018g). | + + + +A=Highly vulnerable | + +Due to its specialization to a unique habitat, hotsprings chub likely have low dispersal capability, and will be unable to naturally colonize areas where populations have become extirpated. | + + +A=Very narrow. Specialist or community with key requirements scarce. | + +The Liard Hotsprings population was found to have a herbivorous diet, which contrasts with the mainly carnivorous diet of other lake chub populations (COSEWIC 2018g). The Atlin Warmsprings population had higher acclimation temperatures than the Liard Hotsprings and coldwater populations tested, and was unable to tolerate colder temperatures after being acclimated to warmer temperatures (Eric Taylor, pers. comm.; Charles Darveau, pers. comm.). The Atlin Warmspring population also had significantly lower activity for enzymes known to be used in cold tolerance (Eric Taylor, pers. comm.; Charles Darveau, pers. comm.). Atlin Warmsprings has stable temperature over a relatively narrow range, in contrast to the Liard Hotsprings which has more variability in temperature; it is thought that the temperature stability in the Atlin Warmsprings has resulted in the loss of the ability to cope with cold water (Charles Darvea, pers. comm.). Mitochondrial DNA sequences from hotsprings lake chub (from the Alpha swamp in the Liard River Hotsprings and also from the Atlin Warmsprings) were compared with two cold water populations (In the upper and lower Liard River); these sequences suggested that the four populations were equally distinct from each other (COSEWIC 2004). The current geographic and reproductive isolation between the hotsprings and cold water populations have likley resulted in rapid divergence; these genetic adaptations have probably evolved post-glacially and independently in each population (COSEWIC 2004). Liard Hotsprings lake chub grow faster (30mm in length during the first summer); mature earlier (at age 1, instead of age 2-3); and die younger (generally by age 2, rather than age 4) than cold water populations (COSEWIC 2004). | + + ++ + + + | Studies looking at genetic, physiological and other life history differences are required. Most information comes from the Liard Hotsprings population, more information on the other two populations are required. Differences between the three potential sub-populations in the Liard Hotsprings complex could be examined. | + + +The population size of the Deer River Hotsprings lake chub is unknown; more recent estimates of the other two population abundances should be determined. | + + + ++ + | + + + + | Gelling, L. | + +January 28, 2019 | + + +
| + AFCJB06013 + | ++ Couesius plumbeus pop. 3 + | + +Couesius plumbeus pop. 1 | + +Lake Chub - Atlin Warm Springs Populations | + +Lake Chub - Hotsprings Ecotype | + + + +S1 | + +May 15, 2019 | + + +May 15, 2019 | + +This single population of Lake Chub occurs only in Atlin Warm Springs within a range of only 4 km2.The introduction of invasive fish species and pollution from recreational activities could potentially decimate the population. | + + + +A = <100 square km | + + ++ + + | The Atlin warm springs population of Lake Chub occurs in the Yukon River drainage near Atlin Lake, in northwestern B.C. The extent of occurrence is 4 km2 (COSEWIC 2018g). | + + +A = 1 | + + ++ + + | + + + | The Atlin Warm Springs DU is separated into two main sections. A western one containing a series of pools, draining into each other and into Warm Bay, and an eastern one containing a pool roughly 10 m x 7 m and up to 1 m depth (COSEWIC 2018g). The eastern section also drains into Warm Bay via a branching stream which first drains into a low-lying marsh (COSEWIC 2018g). Lake Chub inhabit the pool but are particularly abundant in the outlet stream. The area of occupancy and extent of occurrence for the Atlin Warm Springs Lake Chub DU is 4.0 km2 (COSEWIC 2018g). | + + ++ + + + | A = 1 - 5 | + + +The only occurrence is the Atlin warm springs. | + + +Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + | + + + + | A = None | + + ++ + + | DE = 1,000 - 10,000 individuals | + + +The Atlin Warm Springs population likely numbers in the thousands. Though several hundred were estimated in 2000, a more recent study conservatively estimated 1500-2200 individuals (COSEWIC 2018g). | + + + + + +BD = High - low | + + +The main threats to this population include the introduction of non-native fish and recreational activities, such as the addition of camping fuel, lotions, oils and soaps into the pools. (COSEWIC 2018g). | + + + +U = Unknown | + + +Occasional excavation of the main pool for hot springs bathing could have an impact, but there are no data on whether Lake Chub abundance has been impacted (COSEWIC 2018g). | + + +U = Unknown | + ++ + + + | A=Highly vulnerable | + +Due to its specialization to a unique habitat, hotsprings chub likely have low dispersal capability, and will be unable to naturally colonize areas where populations have become extirpated. | + + +A=Very narrow. Specialist or community with key requirements scarce. | + +The Liard Hotsprings population was found to have a herbivorous diet, which contrasts with the mainly carnivorous diet of other lake chub populations (COSEWIC 2004). The Atlin Warmsprings population had higher acclimation temperatures than the Liard Hotsprings and coldwater populations tested, and was unable to tolerate colder temperatures after being acclimated to warmer temperatures (Eric Taylor, pers. comm.; Charles Darveau, pers. comm.). The Atlin Warmspring population also had significantly lower activity for enzymes known to be used in cold tolerance (Eric Taylor, pers. comm.; Charles Darveau, pers. comm.). Atlin Warmsprings has stable temperature over a relatively narrow range, in contrast to the Liard Hotsprings which has more variability in temperature; it is thought that the temperature stability in the Atlin Warmsprings has resulted in the loss of the ability to cope with cold water (Charles Darvea, pers. comm.). Mitochondrial DNA sequences from hotsprings lake chub (from the Alpha swamp in the Liard River Hotsprings and also from the Atlin Warmsprings) were compared with two cold water populations (In the upper and lower Liard River); these sequences suggested that the four populations were equally distinct from each other (COSEWIC 2004). The current geographic and reproductive isolation between the hotsprings and cold water populations have likley resulted in rapid divergence; these genetic adaptations have probably evolved post-glacially and independently in each population (COSEWIC 2004). Liard Hotsprings lake chub grow faster (30mm in length during the first summer); mature earlier (at age 1, instead of age 2-3); and die younger (generally by age 2, rather than age 4) than cold water populations (COSEWIC 2004). | + + ++ + + + | + + + | + + + + | + + | + + + + | Patricia Woodruff, S. Pollard and L. Gelling | + +January 21, 2019 | + + +
| + AFCPA02010 + | ++ Culaea inconstans + | + ++ + | Brook Stickleback | + ++ + + + | S5 | + +November 04, 2000 | + + +March 30, 2018 | + ++ + + + | F = 20,000-200,000 square km | + + ++ + + | The Brook Stickleback occurs in northeastern B.C., in the lower Peace, lower Liard, Fort Nelson, Petitot and uper Hay river systems (McPhail 2007). | + + ++ + + | + + + | + + + | + + + | + + + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + | + + + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + + + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + ++ + + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + ++ + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + ++ + + | + + + + | + + + | + + + + | + + | + + + + | Westereng, L. | + +February 29, 2008 | + + +
| + AFBAA02120 + | ++ Entosphenus macrostomus + | + +Lampetra macrostoma | + +Cowichan Lake Lamprey | + +Lake Lamprey Vancouver Island Lake Lamprey Vancouver Lamprey |
+
+
+
+S2 | + +May 15, 2019 | + + +May 15, 2019 | + +Cowichan Lake Lamprey is an endemic species restricted to three adjacent lakes within a small range on southern Vancouver Island (less than 200 km2). Major threats include bycatch, droughts, water management sedimentation and residential development. | + + + +B = 100-250 square km | + + +176 | + + +Cowichan Lake Lamprey is found only on Vancouver Island, within Cowichan, Bear and Mesachie Lakes and their tributaries. They have not been observed below the lake outlets even though there are no barriers (Beamish 1982, cited in COSEWIC 2017c). The known distribution is approximately 176 km2 (COSEWIC 2017c). | + + +E = 26-125 | + + ++ + + | + + + | The index of area of occupancy, 176km2, was calculated using a 2km x 2km grid. (note that this area is same as the extent of occurrence/range) (COSEWIC 2017c). | + + ++ + + + | A = 1 - 5 | + + +The Cowichan Lake lamprey occurs within Cowichan, Bear and Mesachie lakes and the lower parts of tributaries flowing into these two lakes (COSEWIC 2017c). | + + +Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + | + + + + | A = None | + + +Neither the two lakes and their tributaries, nor adjacent lands are currently in protected areas (COSEWIC 2008, 2017c). "Provincial legislation in BC (e.g., the Water Sustainability Act and Riparian Areas Protection Act) will offer some limited habitat protection and BC Sportfishing Regulations prohibit fishing for and retaining Vancouver Lamprey." (COSEWIC 2017c). | + + +D = 1,000 - 2,500 individuals | + + +"Population size estimates for Vancouver Lamprey come from local experts (1000-2000 adults) and genetic data (65 to >2971 adults). However, more accurate estimates (e.g., from mark-recapture studies) are still needed." (COSEWIC 2008, 2017c). | + + + + + +C = Medium | + + +2019 rank assessment: "Vancouver Lamprey, given its restricted distribution, is vulnerable to localized changes in habitat or other localized threats. Vancouver Lamprey habitat is threatened by droughts, dams and water management, increased sedimentation due to forestry, and residential development. As well, bycatch of Vancouver Lamprey adults in the recreational fishery may have an adverse effect on the adult population." (COSEWIC 2017c). " 2010 rank assessment: Presently, there are no major threats to Cowichan Lake lamprey, but given its restricted distribution, it is vulnerable to changes in water or habitat quality or other localized threats (COSEWIC 2008). Given the lack of knowledge on the general biology and habitat needs of the species, current threats are difficult to quantify. The significant decline of coho salmon, their most commonly observed host, is thought to directly impact the abundance of Cowichan Lake lamprey (COSEWIC 2008). For example, coho salmon escapement in the Cowichan Lake system (including Mesachie Lake) averaged 46,860 in the 1950s, 40,250 in the 1960s, 44,620 in the 1970s, and 20,550 in the 1980s, representing a decline of nearly 46% over the last 24 years (or 3 lamprey generations), and 73% since the 1950s (Baillie pers. comm. cited in COSEWIC 2008). Deliberate destruction of Cowichan Lake lamprey adults when caught by recreational anglers may have adverse effects on the population (COSEWIC 2008). Mortality rates for this threat are not quantified, but dwindling salmon stocks may lead to increased acrimony toward lampreys from anglers, who are known to kill lampreys in an effort to help declining salmon stocks. Siltation of littoral spawning areas caused by forestry activities or residential and commercial development is thought to be a minor threat to Cowichan Lake lamprey populations (COSEWIC 2008). |
+
+
+
+U = Unknown | + + +2019 rank assessment: "NatureServe (2015) stated that the short-term trend of the population is unknown (but fluctuations seem to occur)..." (COSEWIC 2017c; NatureServe ND, accessed 30 January 2019). "Without a more accurate method of measuring lamprey abundance (e.g., markrecapture studies), it is difficult to draw firm conclusions about population trends. As an alternative method of examining population trends, MacConnachie and Wade (2016) suggest electroshocking the same areas for ammocoetes every two to three years and comparing counts over time." (COSEWIC 2017c). 2010 rank assessment: The current population of Cowichan Lake lampreys in British Columbia is thought to be stable (COSEWIC 2008). However, the population appears to fluctuate from year-to-year. Changes in salmonid scarring rates may provide an index of the number of adult lampreys per year. The magnitude and frequency of such fluctuations have not been sufficiently quantified, but data from Mesachie Lake suggest that the number of lampreys between 1987-1996 was lower than that prior to 1982 (COSEWIC 2008). The number of juvenile or adult lampreys caught during the same time period in the downstream trap at the Mesachie Creek enumeration fence ranged from 4 (in 1991) to 60 (in 1995), while the number of coho salmon smolts recorded with lamprey wounds ranged from 139 (in 1989) to 1982 (in 1996). In both datasets, numbers varied by more than an order of magnitude, but no statistically significant population decline or increase was evident over the 10-year period (COSEWIC 2008). |
+
+
+U = Unknown | + ++ + + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + ++ + + | A=Very narrow. Specialist or community with key requirements scarce. | + +Cowichan Lake lampreys are inferred to be dependent on a narrow suite of habitat types due to its restricted distribution. | + + +The Cowichan Lake lamprey is endemic to British Columbia (COSEWIC 2008). The species was first described in 1982 (Beamish 1982); previously, it was thought to be a dwarf race of Pacific lamprey (COSEWIC 2008). | + + + +2010 rank assessment: Further research is required to identify biological and taxonomic relationships to its close relative the Pacific lamprey and three other freshwater derivatives found in Village Bay Lake (Quadra Island), West Lake (Nelson Island) (Beamish 2001), and on the Sechelt Peninsula on British Columbia's mainland coast (Baillie pers. comm. 2007; Taylor pers. comm. 2007; both cited in COSEWIC 2008). General biology of the Lake Cowichan lamprey is poorly known and should be further studied. To determine the severity of the threat imposed by declines in target host species, particularly coho salmon, the lamprey's behavioural, numerical and life history responses should be studied. Although there is indirect evidence to suggest that the Cowichan Lake lamprey moves between Cowichan and Mesachie lakes, this needs to be studied and quantified. Little is known about dispersal within each of the two lakes, further study is required to identify seasonal movements among habitats. | + + +No quantified population estimates exist. Regular monitoring of the population should be continued and expanded. | + + + +Spawning habitat (shallow water gravel areas near creek mouths) and important seasonal areas should be considered for protection. | + ++ + + + | Chytyk, P. and L. Gelling | + +May 15, 2019 | + + +
| + AFBAA02100 + | ++ Entosphenus tridentatus + | + +Lampetra tridentata | + +Pacific Lamprey | + ++ + + + | S5 | + +May 11, 2010 | + + +May 15, 2019 | + ++ + + + | G = 200,000-2,500,000 square km | + + ++ + + | Throughout central and western BC (see map in McPhail 2007) | + + +U = Unknown | + + ++ + + | + + + | + + + | + + + + | D = 81 - 300 | + + ++ + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + | + + + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + | U = Unknown | + + ++ + + + + + | C = Medium | + + ++ + + + | U = Unknown | + + +"Short-term trends are difficult to interpret because lampreys perhaps may produce stronger year-classes in some years than in others (spawning may not occur in all small streams every year; or perhaps ammocoetes from one spawning may transform to adults over a period of years)." (Wydoski and Whitney 2003, cited in NatureServe 2017, accessed November 23, 2018). | + + +FG = Decline of <30% to relatively stable | + +"This species is apparently secure in British Columbia (Renaud et al. 2009). The population in Elise Lake in British Columbia has apparently been extirpated (Beamish and Northcote 1989). In urbanized streams of the lower Fraser River valley in British Columbia, spawning adults are much less common than they were in the 1960s (McPhail 2007). The species appears to be extirpated in the British Columbia portion of the Columbia River system (McPhail 2007)." (cited in Natureserve 2017, accessed November 23, 2018). | + + + +Rank Factor not assessed | + ++ + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + ++ + + | + + + + | + + + | + + + + | + + | + + + + | Gelling, L. | + +May 15, 2019 | + + +
| + AFCPA03010 + | ++ Gasterosteus aculeatus + | + ++ + | Threespine Stickleback | + ++ + + + | S5 | + +January 31, 1992 | + + +March 30, 2018 | + ++ + + + | G = 200,000-2,500,000 square km | + + ++ + + | + + + | + + + | + + + | + + + | + + + | + + + + | E = > 300 | + + ++ + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + | + + + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + + + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + ++ + + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + ++ + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + ++ + + | + + + + | + + + | + + + + | + + | + + + + | Westereng, L. | + +February 29, 2008 | + + +
| + AFCPA03014 + | ++ Gasterosteus aculeatus pop. 1 + | + +Gasterosteus aculeatus ssp. | + +Charlotte Unarmoured Threespine Stickleback | + +Charlotte Unarmoured Stickleback | + + + +S1S2 | + +March 30, 2018 | + + +March 30, 2018 | + +Charlotte Unarmoured Threespine Stickleback is endemic to 3 small lakes with a range of only 124 square km. The greatest threat is the introduction of non-native species, which can be devastating to endemic stickleback populations; Hadley Lake Limnetic and Benthic Sticklebacks became extinct after the introduction of Brown Bullhead (National Recovery Team for Stickleback Species Pairs 2007). | + + + +B = 100-250 square km | + + ++ + + | Charlotte Unarmoured Threespine Stickleback is restricted to three lakes on Graham Island, Haida Gwaii, with a total range of 124 km2 (COSEWIC 2013h). | + + +C = 3-5 | + + +20 | + + ++ + + | Restricted to Boulton, Rouge and Serendipity Lakes. The area of occupancy is 20 km2 (5 2x2 km grid cells) (COSEWIC 2013h). | + + ++ + + + | A = 1 - 5 | + + +Three lakes on Haida Gwaii - Boulton, Rouge and Serendipity | + + +Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + | + + + + | B = 1 - 3 | + + +Rouge and Serendipity Lake watersheds are within the boundary of Naikoon Provincial Park (Rouge Lake is located on a 130ha private holding within this park); Serendipty Lake is on Crown land (COSEWIC 2013h). | + + +G = 100,000 - 1,000,000 individuals | + + +Rough estimates are 350,000 in Boulton, 17,500 in Rouge and 22,000 in Serendipity. Total is approximately 389,500 individuals (Reimchen 1984 in COSEWIC 2013h). | + + + + + +D = Low | + + +Threats were calculated to be low, as locations on Haida Gwaii are remote and part of the range is within a provincial park, which offers some security for populations. The threat of introduction of exotic aquatic species is low, but consequences would likely be severe (COSEWIC 2013h). Other threats include rural and industrial activity, oil spills from logging and highways as well as introduced species including beaver and fish. The establishment of predatory fish, such as Coastal Cutthroat Trout for sport fishing would change the selective regime of the lakes which could potentially eliminate the population by diminishing its size and/or drastically altering its genetic structure (COSEWIC 2013h). This was the case with Hadley Lake Limnetic and Benthic Sticklebacks, which became extinct after the introduction of Brown Bullhead (National Recovery Team for Stickleback Species Pairs 2007). | + + + +U = Unknown | + + +"There has been no systematic monitoring of abundance of the Unarmoured Threespine Stickleback in either Boulton, Rouge, or Serendipity lakes." (COSEWIC 2013h). | + + +G = Relatively Stable (<=10% change) | + +Rouge and Serendipity lakes underwent a period of habitat alteration due to beaver activity. The impact of these changes have not been documented but rising water levels have the potential to change recruitment rates by decreasing nesting areas, disrupting mate recognition, and increasing lake use by predatory birds such as loons (Reimchen 1984). Because water levels appear to have stabilized after that time (Reimchen 1984) and there have been no further accounts of change, this limited information suggests that population size is stable (COSEWIC 2013h). | + + + +A=Highly vulnerable | + +This population has evolved in response to specific selective forces (most likely including specific habitat conditions and predator regimes; changes in the selective regimes could lead to adaptive alterations in phenotype that would result in loss of their morphological distinctness (COSEWIC 2013h). | + + +A=Very narrow. Specialist or community with key requirements scarce. | + +Needs include sustained littoral and pelagic productivity, absence of invasive species, and maintenance of gently sloping sand/gravel beaches and natural littoral macrophytes for nesting and juvenile rearing; the three lakes they inhabit are geographically isolated from one another and from other G. aculeatus. (COSEWIC 2013h). | + + ++ + + + | + + + | + + + + | + + | + + + + | Ramsay, L. and L. Gelling | + +March 30, 2018 | + + +
| + AFCPA03016 + | ++ Gasterosteus aculeatus pop. 2 + | + ++ + | Little Quarry Lake Benthic Threespine Stickleback | + ++ + + + | S1 | + +May 15, 2019 | + + +May 15, 2019 | + +Little Quarry Lake Benthic Threespine Sticklebacks are found in only one lake in B.C. - ?Little Quarry Lake?, on Nelson Island. The most significant threat that population faces is an introduction of non-native species, which could devastate the population. | + + + +A = <100 square km | + + +8 | + + +Little Quarry Lake Benthic Threespine Sticklebacks are found in one lake, ?Little Quarry Lake?, on Nelson Island, in the central Strait of Georgia in southwestern British Columbia; the extent of occurrence is 8km2 (COSEWIC 2015l). | + + +B = 2 | + + +8 | + + ++ + + | The index area of occupancy is 8 km2, based on a 2x2 km grid calculation (COSEWIC 2015l). | + + ++ + + + | A = 1 - 5 | + + +Endemic to Little Quarry Lake (COSEWIC 2015l) | + + +Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + | + + + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + + +From COSEWIC (2015l): "Little Quarry Lake Benthic and Limnetic Threespine Sticklebacks are afforded some protection in British Columbia under the provincial Wildlife Act, which enables provincial and territorial authorities to license anglers and angling guides, and to regulate scientific fish collection permits. Collecting guidelines that limit lethal and non-lethal sampling of Little Quarry Lake Benthic and Limnetic Threespine Sticklebacks and restrict all sampling to half of the lake have been developed. Almost all lands adjacent to Little Quarry Lake are Crown Land. Little Quarry Lake fish are, therefore, afforded some protection from the BC Forest and Range Practices Act as well as the provincial Riparian Areas Regulation." | + + +EF = 2,500 - 100,000 individuals | + + +"There have been no direct population estimates of Little Quarry Lake Benthic and Limnetic Threespine Stickleback. A coarse estimate of abundance of adult Benthics and Limnetics can be extrapolated from a mark-recapture study conducted on another BenthicLimnetic species pair. This gives rudimentary estimates of between 5,319 to 12,581 for Benthics and 61,212-199,203 mature individuals for Limnetics, respectively." (COSEWIC 2015l) | + + + + + +A = Very high | + + +From COSEWIC (2015l): "The primary threat to Little Quarry Lake Benthic and Limnetic Threespine Sticklebacks comes from the introduction of non-native species that could prey on them and/or disrupt the habitat requirements of the species pair. The imminence of this threat is uncertain, but the consequences would probably be disastrous. Little Quarry Lake?s relatively remote location likely offers some protection, although remoteness did not prevent the introduction of the exotic Brown Bullhead (and subsequent extinction of a Benthic-Limnetic species pair) in a lake of comparable accessibility, Hadley Lake. Habitat threats from water extraction by local oceanside residents for domestic use, and landbased development e.g., forest harvesting, appear to have been limited to date. Excessive scientific collecting activities also constitute a potential threat." | + + + +U = Unknown | + + +"There has been no quantitative monitoring of Benthic and Limnetic Threespine Stickleback abundance in Little Quarry Lake, so population fluctuations and trends are unknown." (COSEWIC 2015l) | + + +U = Unknown | + ++ + + + | U=Unknown | + +"There has been almost no direct study of the biology of Little Quarry Lake Benthic and Limnetic Threespine Stickleback." (COSEWIC 2015l) | + + +A=Very narrow. Specialist or community with key requirements scarce. | + +From COSEWIC (2015l): Benthic and Limnetic Threespine Stickleback species pairs are sensitive to habitat and environmental changes. Since they are able to interbreed when isolating barriers are removed, they are vulnerable to changes that disrupt these barriers. As a result, the environmental specificity of the Benthic and Limnetic Threespine Stickleback species pairs includes features of the environment that prevent hybridization, as well as those features needed to maintain a viable population (National Recovery Team for Stickleback Species Pairs 2007; Hatfield 2000). Features needed likely include sustained littoral and pelagic productivity, natural light transmissivity to enable mate recognition, maintenance of gently sloping sediment and littoral macrophytes to provide segregated nesting and juvenile rearing habitats. | + + +From COSEWIC (2015l): The Quarry Lake Stickleback pairs are highly susceptible to extinction from aquatic invasive species that have been observed to cause rapid extinction of similar species in at least two other lakes. Many invasive aquatic species already occur in southwestern British Columbia, and any range expansion or introduction of new invasive species to Little Quarry Lake would likely lead to the extinction of this species. | + + + ++ + + | + + + + | + + | + + + + | Gelling L. | + +March 30, 2018 | + + +
| + AFCPA03017 + | ++ Gasterosteus aculeatus pop. 3 + | + ++ + | Little Quarry Limnetic Threespine Stickleback | + ++ + + + | S1 | + +May 15, 2019 | + + +May 15, 2019 | + +2018-8-initial rank assessment | + + + +A = <100 square km | + + +8 | + + +Little Quarry Lake Limnetic Threespine Sticklebacks are found in one lake, ?Little Quarry Lake?, on Nelson Island, in the central Strait of Georgia in southwestern British Columbia; the extent of occurrence is 8km2 (COSEWIC 2015l). | + + +B = 2 | + + +8 | + + ++ + + | The index area of occupancy is 8 km2, based on a 2x2 km grid calculation (COSEWIC 2015l). | + + ++ + + + | A = 1 - 5 | + + +Endemic to Little Quarry Lake (COSEWIC 2015l) | + + +Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + | + + + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + + +From COSEWIC (2015l): "Little Quarry Lake Benthic and Limnetic Threespine Sticklebacks are afforded some protection in British Columbia under the provincial Wildlife Act, which enables provincial and territorial authorities to license anglers and angling guides, and to regulate scientific fish collection permits. Collecting guidelines that limit lethal and non-lethal sampling of Little Quarry Lake Benthic and Limnetic Threespine Sticklebacks and restrict all sampling to half of the lake have been developed. Almost all lands adjacent to Little Quarry Lake are Crown Land. Little Quarry Lake fish are, therefore, afforded some protection from the BC Forest and Range Practices Act as well as the provincial Riparian Areas Regulation." | + + +FG = 10,000 - 1,000,000 individuals | + + +"There have been no direct population estimates of Little Quarry Lake Benthic and Limnetic Threespine Stickleback. A coarse estimate of abundance of adult Benthics and Limnetics can be extrapolated from a mark-recapture study conducted on another BenthicLimnetic species pair. This gives rudimentary estimates of between 5,319 to 12,581 for Benthics and 61,212-199,203 mature individuals for Limnetics, respectively." (COSEWIC 2015l) | + + + + + +A = Very high | + + +From COSEWIC (2015l): "The primary threat to Little Quarry Lake Benthic and Limnetic Threespine Sticklebacks comes from the introduction of non-native species that could prey on them and/or disrupt the habitat requirements of the species pair. The imminence of this threat is uncertain, but the consequences would probably be disastrous. Little Quarry Lake?s relatively remote location likely offers some protection, although remoteness did not prevent the introduction of the exotic Brown Bullhead (and subsequent extinction of a Benthic-Limnetic species pair) in a lake of comparable accessibility, Hadley Lake. Habitat threats from water extraction by local oceanside residents for domestic use, and landbased development e.g., forest harvesting, appear to have been limited to date. Excessive scientific collecting activities also constitute a potential threat." | + + + +U = Unknown | + + +"There has been no quantitative monitoring of Benthic and Limnetic Threespine Stickleback abundance in Little Quarry Lake, so population fluctuations and trends are unknown." (COSEWIC 2015l) | + + +U = Unknown | + ++ + + + | U=Unknown | + +"There has been almost no direct study of the biology of Little Quarry Lake Benthic and Limnetic Threespine Stickleback." (COSEWIC 2015l) | + + +A=Very narrow. Specialist or community with key requirements scarce. | + +From COSEWIC (2015l): Benthic and Limnetic Threespine Stickleback species pairs are sensitive to habitat and environmental changes. Since they are able to interbreed when isolating barriers are removed, they are vulnerable to changes that disrupt these barriers. As a result, the environmental specificity of the Benthic and Limnetic Threespine Stickleback species pairs includes features of the environment that prevent hybridization, as well as those features needed to maintain a viable population (National Recovery Team for Stickleback Species Pairs 2007; Hatfield 2000). Features needed likely include sustained littoral and pelagic productivity, natural light transmissivity to enable mate recognition, maintenance of gently sloping sediment and littoral macrophytes to provide segregated nesting and juvenile rearing habitats. | + + +From COSEWIC (2015l): The Quarry Lake Stickleback pairs are highly susceptible to extinction from aquatic invasive species that have been observed to cause rapid extinction of similar species in at least two other lakes. Many invasive aquatic species already occur in southwestern British Columbia, and any range expansion or introduction of new invasive species to Little Quarry Lake would likely lead to the extinction of this species. | + + + ++ + + | + + + + | + + | + + + + | Gelling, L. | + +March 30, 2018 | + + +
| + AFCPA03X10 + | ++ Gasterosteus sp. 1 + | + ++ + | Giant Threespine Stickleback | + +Giant Black Stickleback | + + + +S1S2 | + +March 30, 2018 | + + +March 30, 2018 | + +Giant Threespine Stickleback is endemic to two small lakes with a range of only 63 square km. The greatest threat is the introduction of non-native species, which can be devastating to endemic stickleback populations, for example, Hadley Lake Limnetic and Benthic Sticklebacks became extinct after the introduction of Brown Bullhead (National Recovery Team for Stickleback Species Pairs 2007). | + + + +A = <100 square km | + + +63 | + + +Giant Threespine Stickleback is endemic to two Iakes in the northeast of Graham Island, Haida Gwaii (Moodie 1972a, 1984; Moodie and Reimchen 1973, 1976; Reimchen 1984; Reimchen et al. 1985). The estimated extent of occurrence is 63 km2 (COSEWIC 2013h). | + + +D = 6-25 | + + +52 | + + ++ + + | Giant Threespine Stickleback is found in Mayer Lake in the Mayer River drainage and Drizzle Lake in the Sangan River drainage. The area of occupancy is 52 km2 (13 2x2 km grid cells). (COSEWIC 2013h). | + + ++ + + + | A = 1 - 5 | + + +There are two occurrences known; Mayer and Drizzle lakes, on Graham Island, Haida Gwaii (COSEWIC 2013h). | + + +Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + | + + + + | B = 1 - 3 | + + +Mayer Lake is in Naikoon Provincial Park and Drizzle Lake is an Ecological Reserve (COSEWIC 2013h). | + + +G = 100,000 - 1,000,000 individuals | + + +Population is estimated to be 75,000 in Mayer Lake and greater than 100,000 in Drizzle Lake (COSEWIC 2013h). | + + + + + +D = Low | + + +Threats were calculated to be low, as locations on Haida Gwaii are remote and part of the range is within a provincial park and an ecological reserve which offer some security for populations. The threat of introduction of exotic aquatic species is low, but consequences would likely be severe (COSEWIC 2013h). Other threats include rural and industrial activity, oil spills from logging and highways as well as introduced species including beaver and fish. The establishment of predatory fish, such as Coastal Cutthroat Trout for sport fishing would change the selective regime of the lakes which could potentially eliminate the population by diminishing its size and/or drastically altering its genetic structure (COSEWIC 2013h). | + + + +U = Unknown | + + +"There has been no systematic monitoring of abundance of the Giant Threespine Stickleback in either Mayer or Drizzle lakes, so population trends are unknown." (COSEWIC 2013h) | + + +G = Relatively Stable (<=10% change) | + +General observations of adult stickleback in littoral zones of Mayer Lake during reproduction season indicate no evidence of changes in abundance from the late 1960's to 2003 (Reimchen 2004). | + + + +A=Highly vulnerable | + +This population has evolved in response to specific selective forces (most likely including specific habitat conditions and predator regimes; changes in the selective regimes could lead to adaptive alterations in phenotype that would result in loss of their morphological distinctness (COSEWIC 2013h). | + + +A=Very narrow. Specialist or community with key requirements scarce. | + +The Giant Threespine Stickleback is confined to two dystrophic lakes and does not enter connecting streams (COSEWIC 2013h). It is generally pelagic, but prefers to nest in the shallower littoral zone vegetation stands on gently sloping sandy substrate (Moodie 1972a, 1984, in COSEWIC 2013h). | + + ++ + + + | Strategies and techniques on how to deal with exotic introductions need to be developed. | + + +Similar lakes on the northwest coast of North America and on northern Vancouver Island should continue to be surveyed for the presence of giant sticklebacks. | + + + ++ + | + + + + | Ptolemy, J., Ramsay, L and Gelling, L. | + +November 25, 2013 | + + +
| + AFCPA03140 + | ++ Gasterosteus sp. 12 + | + ++ + | Hadley Lake Limnetic Stickleback | + ++ + + + | SX | + +November 28, 1994 | + + +March 30, 2018 | + +This Canadian endemic fish was known only from Hadley Lake, Lasqueti Island, British Columbia. It was lost as a result of nest predation by the introduced brown bullhead (National Recovery Team for Stickleback Species Pairs. 2007). | + + + +Z = 0 (Zero) | + + ++ + + | Formerly found only in Hadley Lake, Lasqueti Island, off the east coast of Vancouver Island (National Recovery Team for Stickleback Species Pairs. 2007). | + + +Z = 0 | + + ++ + + | + + + | + + + | + + + + | Z = 0 (zero) | + + ++ + + | A = None (zero) | + + ++ + + | + + + + | A = None | + + ++ + + | Z = Zero, no individuals known extant | + + ++ + + + + + | A = Very high | + + +"The Hadley Lake species pair quickly became extinct following the introduction of brown bullhead (Ameiurus nebulosus), which likely preyed upon or interfered with nesting stickleback, ultimately leading to complete recruitment failure (Hatfield 2001a). Bullhead were introduced to Hadley Lake in the early 1990s and stickleback were absent by 1995 (Hatfield 2001a)." (National Recovery Team for Stickleback Species Pairs. 2007). | + + + +A = Decline of >90% | + + +. | + + +U = Unknown | + ++ + + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + ++ + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + ++ + + | + + + + | + + + | + + + + | + + | + + + + | Cannings, S.G. | + +November 28, 1994 | + + +
| + AFCPA03150 + | ++ Gasterosteus sp. 13 + | + ++ + | Hadley Lake Benthic Stickleback | + ++ + + + | SX | + +November 28, 1994 | + + +March 30, 2018 | + +This Canadian endemic fish was known only from Hadley Lake, Lasqueti Island, British Columbia. It was lost as a result of nest predation by the introduced brown bullhead (National Recovery Team for Stickleback Species Pairs. 2007). | + + + +Z = 0 (Zero) | + + ++ + + | Formerly found only in Hadley Lake, Lasqueti Island, off the east coast of Vancouver Island (National Recovery Team for Stickleback Species Pairs. 2007). | + + +Z = 0 | + + ++ + + | + + + | + + + | + + + + | Z = 0 (zero) | + + ++ + + | A = None (zero) | + + ++ + + | + + + + | A = None | + + ++ + + | Z = Zero, no individuals known extant | + + ++ + + + + + | A = Very high | + + +"The Hadley Lake species pair quickly became extinct following the introduction of brown bullhead (Ameiurus nebulosus), which likely preyed upon or interfered with nesting stickleback, ultimately leading to complete recruitment failure (Hatfield 2001a). Bullhead were introduced to Hadley Lake in the early 1990s and stickleback were absent by 1995 (Hatfield 2001a)." (National Recovery Team for Stickleback Species Pairs. 2007). | + + + +A = Decline of >90% | + + ++ + + | U = Unknown | + ++ + + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + ++ + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + ++ + + | + + + + | + + + | + + + + | + + | + + + + | Cannings, S.G. | + +November 28, 1994 | + + +
| + AFCPA03180 + | ++ Gasterosteus sp. 16 + | + ++ + | Vananda Creek Limnetic Stickleback | + ++ + + + | S1 | + +March 06, 2000 | + + +March 30, 2018 | + +Vananda Creek Limnetic Stickleback is restricted to three small lakes in one watershed within a range of less than 2 square km. It is extremely vulnerable to non-native species introductions that have caused hybridization and extinction in similar species pairs. | + + + +A = <100 square km | + + +2 | + + +Found only in Priest, Emily, and Balkwill Lakes, Texada Island which is less than 2 square km COSEWIC 2010g). Priest Lake, with a surface area of 42 ha, is the largest of the three lakes. Emily Lake is about 7 ha; Balkwill Lake is about 12.5 ha in size. | + + +C = 3-5 | + + +4 | + + ++ + + | The area of occupancy is 0.63 km2 (4 2x2km grid cells) (COSEWIC 2010g). | + + ++ + + + | A = 1 - 5 | + + +Restricted to three small lakes in one watershed (Hatfield 2001). | + + +AB = 0 - 3 | + + ++ + + | The watershed is in an area with high potential for development, water extraction, timber harvest and recreation (Hatfield 2001). Critical habitat has been identified in the proposed action plan (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2016). | + + + +A = None | + + +There are no habitat protection provisions specifically for Vananda Creek Benthic and Limnetic Threespine Sticklebacks (COSEWIC 2010g). | + + +FG = 10,000 - 1,000,000 individuals | + + +Recent poulation estimates of Priest Lake suggest a limnetic population of 110,612 (range 78,068-189,684; Schluter et al. 2017); this estimate includes juvenile fish. Population sizes in Emily and Spectacle lakes have yet to be estimated directly (Schluter et al. 2017). | + + + + + +A = Very high | + + +The primary threat to the Vananda Creek Benthic Threespine Stickleback is the introduction of an invasive species, as previous introductions in other stickleback species pair lakes have led to the extinction or hybridization of the stickleback species pairs within those lakes (COSEWIC 2010). While there have been increased incidences of invasive species introductions, it is not known when or if an introduction will occur in the Vananda Creek watershed. Forest harvesting has occurred in the past and is ongoing (COSEWIC 2010). It is unknown how much water is being used at present; permits allow for a substantial amount of water to be drawn from Emily Lake and a moderate amount from Priest Lake, although it is believed that the large industrial permits are not currently in use (COSEWIC 2010; National Recovery Team for Stickleback Species Pairs 2007). Permits are required and there are guidelines to the location and number of stickleback species pairs that can be collected by researchers in the Vananda Creek watershed (including Priest, Emily and Spectacle/Balkwill lakes; Recovery Team for Non-Game Freshwater Fish Species in BC 2008). The threat of climate change is considered low at this time (COSEWIC 2010). Any threat to the breeding habitat of the limnetic or benthic species pair could result in increased hybridization and collapse of the species pair (COSEWIC 2010), and so threats are considered to be the same to both the Vananda Creek limnetic and benthic species. As this species pair only occurs in these three small, interconnected lakes, any change in water quality or habitat will affect most if not all of the species pair. | + + + +G = Relatively Stable (<=10% change) | + + +"Benthic and Limnetic sticklebacks, have been intensively studied by zoologists at UBC for the last two decades or more (e.g., Schluter and McPhail 1992; McPhail 1994; Taylor and McPhail 1999). Throughout this time both species in Priest Lake have remained fairly easy to trap in large numbers in Gee traps. Sampling has been more sporadic in Spectacle and Emily lakes." (COSEWIC 2010g). |
+
+
+U = Unknown | + +There has been no systematic monitoring of abundance in Spectacle, Priest and Emily lakes, so population trends are unknown (COSEWIC 2010g). | + + + +A=Highly vulnerable | + +Evidence from the extinction of the Hadley Lake species pair and the sudden hybridization of the Enos Lake pair suggest that these sympatric species pairs are highly vulnerable to the introduction of exotic species and reduced water clarity. | + + +A=Very narrow. Specialist or community with key requirements scarce. | + +Inferred from the small number of sites where sympatric species pairs of threespine stickleback that have been found. | + + ++ + + + | + + + | + + + + | + + | + + + + | L. Gelling (2018), Ptolemy, J. (2005); | + +March 30, 2018 | + + +
| + AFCPA03190 + | ++ Gasterosteus sp. 17 + | + ++ + | Vananda Creek Benthic Stickleback | + ++ + + + | S1 | + +March 06, 2000 | + + +March 30, 2018 | + +Vananda Creek Benthic Stickleback is restricted to three small lakes in one watershed within a range of less than 2 square km. It is extremely vulnerable to non-native species introductions that have caused hybridization and extinction in similar species pairs. | + + + +A = <100 square km | + + +2 | + + +Found only in Priest, Emily, and Balkwill Lakes, Texada Island which is less than 2 square km COSEWIC 2010g). Priest Lake, with a surface area of 42 ha, is the largest of the three lakes. Emily Lake is about 7 ha; Balkwill Lake is about 12.5 ha in size. | + + +C = 3-5 | + + +4 | + + ++ + + | The area of occupancy is 0.63 km2 (4 2x2km grid cells) (COSEWIC 2010g). | + + ++ + + + | A = 1 - 5 | + + +Restricted to three small lakes in one watershed (Hatfield 2001). | + + +AB = 0 - 3 | + + ++ + + | The watershed is in an area with high potential for development, water extraction, timber harvest and recreation (Hatfield 2001).Critical habitat has been identified in the proposed action plan (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2016). | + + + +A = None | + + +There are no habitat protection provisions specifically for Vananda Creek Benthic and Limnetic Threespine Sticklebacks (COSEWIC 2010g). | + + +G = 100,000 - 1,000,000 individuals | + + +Population estimates of Priest Lake suggest a benthic population of 118,058 (range 101,351-141,358; Schluter et al. 2017); this estimate includes juvenile fish. Population sizes in Emily and Spectacle lakes have yet to be estimated directly (Schluter et al. 2017). | + + + + + +A = Very high | + + +The primary threat to the Vananda Creek Benthic Threespine Stickleback is the introduction of an invasive species, as previous introductions in other stickleback species pair lakes have led to the extinction or hybridization of the stickleback species pairs within those lakes (COSEWIC 2010). While there have been increased incidences of invasive species introductions, it is not known when or if an introduction will occur in the Vananda Creek watershed. Forest harvesting has occurred in the past and is ongoing (COSEWIC 2010). It is unknown how much water is being used at present; permits allow for a substantial amount of water to be drawn from Emily Lake and a moderate amount from Priest Lake, although it is believed that the large industrial permits are not currently in use (COSEWIC 2010; National Recovery Team for Stickleback Species Pairs 2007). Permits are required and there are guidelines to the location and number of stickleback species pairs that can be collected by researchers in the Vananda Creek watershed (including Priest, Emily and Spectacle/Balkwill lakes; Recovery Team for Non-Game Freshwater Fish Species in BC 2008). The threat of climate change is considered low at this time (COSEWIC 2010). Any threat to the breeding habitat of the limnetic or benthic species pair could result in increased hybridization and collapse of the species pair (COSEWIC 2010), and so threats are considered to be the same to both the Vananda Creek limnetic and benthic species. As this species pair only occurs in these three small, interconnected lakes, any change in water quality or habitat will affect most if not all of the species pair. | + + + +G = Relatively Stable (<=10% change) | + + +"Benthic and Limnetic sticklebacks, have been intensively studied by zoologists at UBC for the last two decades or more (e.g., Schluter and McPhail 1992; McPhail 1994; Taylor and McPhail 1999). Throughout this time both species in Priest Lake have remained fairly easy to trap in large numbers in Gee traps. Sampling has been more sporadic in Spectacle and Emily lakes." (COSEWIC 2010g). | + + +U = Unknown | + +There has been no systematic monitoring of abundance in Spectacle, Priest and Emily lakes, so population trends are unknown (COSEWIC 2010g). | + + + +A=Highly vulnerable | + +Evidence from the extinction of the Hadley Lake species pair and the sudden hybridization of the Enos Lake pair suggest that these sympatric pairs are highly vulnerable to the introduction of exotic species and reduced water clarity. | + + +A=Very narrow. Specialist or community with key requirements scarce. | + +Inferred from the small number of sites where sympatric species pairs of threespine stickleback that have been found. | + + ++ + + + | + + + | + + + + | + + | + + + + | L. Gelling (2018); Ptolemy, J. (2005) | + +March 30, 2018 | + + +
| + AFCPA03200 + | ++ Gasterosteus sp. 18 + | + ++ + | Misty Lake "Lake" Stickleback | + ++ + + + | S1 | + +March 10, 2004 | + + +March 30, 2018 | + +Mistly Lake "Lake" Stickleback is restricted to a single lake. It is extremely vulnerable to non-native species introductions that have caused hybridization and extinction in similar species pairs.<br /><br />Molecular data strongly suggests the lake-stream pairs on Graham Island and northern Vancouver Island evolved separately through parallel evolution: neither the Misty lake form nor its corresponding inlet stream form clustered with similar forms from the Drizzle or Mayer lake systems; the Misty pair did not share any mtDNA haplotypes with either of the those pairs; and, the haplotypes were phylogenetically independent from the Graham Island haplotypes (Thompson et al. 1997). | + + + +A = <100 square km | + + ++ + + | Misty Lake has a surface area of 35.6 ha. | + + +AC = 1-5 | + + ++ + + | + + + | Misty Lake has a surface area of 35.6 ha. | + + ++ + + + | A = 1 - 5 | + + +Part of a parapatric lake-stream pair, lake form known from one small lake on northern Vancouver Island (Lavin and McPhail 1993; Thompson et al. 1997). | + + +U = Unknown | + + ++ + + | The Misty Lake Ecological Reserve does not include the drainage area above the lake; it is located adjacent to a well travelled highway. | + + + +B = 1 - 3 | + + +The lake is located within the boundaries of the Misty Lake Ecological Reserve, established for the protection of this large lake stickleback. | + + +F = 10,000 - 100,000 individuals | + + +No population estimate has been done, however assumed greater than 10.000. | + + + + + +A = Very high | + + +Threats include introduction of exotic species, potential impacts of hydrocarbon and pesticide contamination from the adjacent highway and rest stop, water quality and hydrological changes from nearby logging, and recreational use of the lake (canoeing and illegal fishing). | + + + +G = Relatively Stable (<=10% change) | + + +Trend is inferred; no reports of apparent decline from active research at this site. | + + +FH = Decline of <30% to increase of 25% | + +Probably stable. | + + + +A=Highly vulnerable | + +Species has a short life span and is extremely vulnerable to nest predation from non-native species, as seen in the extinction of the Hadley Lake benthic and limnetic sticklebacks. | + + +A=Very narrow. Specialist or community with key requirements scarce. | + +Specificity is suspected. Parapatric lake and stream sticklebacks have been observed in only three drainage systems in the northeast Pacific; the others are the Mayer Lake and Drizzle Lake systems on the Queen Charlotte Islands (Moodie 1972, Reimchen et al. 1985; Lavin and McPhail 1993). | + + +The parapatric stickleback pair found in the Misty Lake system is one of only three known to occur; it is invaluable to the study of evolutionary processes. | + + + +Strategies and techniques to deal with exotic introductions and species recovery need to be determined. | + + +Lakes and their tributaries on the northwest coast of North America and on northern Vancouver Island should continue to be surveyed for the presence of similar lake-stream stickleback pairs. | + + + +The boundaries of the Misty Lake Ecological Reserve should capture the entire watershed; the highway rest stop should be moved outside of the watershed; and regular monitoring programs should be established to determine trends in stickleback abundance. | + +Monitoring plans and strategies to deal with exotic species introductions need to be developed. | + + + +Ptolemy, J. | + +February 04, 2005 | + + +
| + AFCPA03210 + | ++ Gasterosteus sp. 19 + | + ++ + | Misty Lake "Stream" Stickleback | + ++ + + + | S1 | + +March 10, 2004 | + + +March 30, 2018 | + +Misty Lake "Stream" Stickleback is found only in a single small stream. | + + + +A = <100 square km | + + ++ + + | Known from one small stream. | + + ++ + + | + + + | A = 1-4 | + + +Estimated from 1:51,000 scale mapping and sample site locations (Hendry and Moore, in submission). | + + ++ + + + | A = 1 - 5 | + + +Part of a parapatric lake-steam pair, known only from the inlet stream to Misty Lake, on northern Vancouver Island (Lavin and McPhail 1993; Thompson et al. 1997). | + + +A = None (zero) | + + ++ + + | Less than 50 m of inlet stream habitat is included within the boundaries of the Misty Lake Ecological Reserve. About 900 m above the lake the stream flows through a culvert under a highway; the culvert acts as a fish barrier at low water. | + + + +A = None | + + +The Misty Lake Ecological Reserve does not capture the inlet tributary. | + + +CD = 250 - 2,500 individuals | + + +No population estimate has been done, but the abundance of the stream form is much lower than the lake form. | + + + + + +A = Very high | + + +Threats include introduction of exotic species, potential impacts of hydrocarbon and pesticide contamination from the adjacent highway and rest stop, water quality and hydrological changes from nearby logging. | + + + +G = Relatively Stable (<=10% change) | + + +Trend is inferred; no reports of apparent decline based on active research at this site. | + + +FH = Decline of <30% to increase of 25% | + +Probably stable, with the possibility of declines during dry periods. | + + + +A=Highly vulnerable | + +Species has a short life span and is extremely vulnerable to nest predation from non-native species, as seen in the extinction of the Hadley Lake benthic and limnetic sticklebacks. | + + +A=Very narrow. Specialist or community with key requirements scarce. | + +Factors needed for the evolution of a parapetric lake-stream pair are not fully understood. Specificity is suspected; parapatric lake and stream sticklebacks have been observed in only three drainage systems in the northeast Pacific; the others are the Mayer Lake and Drizzle Lake systems on the Queen Charlotte Islands (Moodie 1972; Reimchen et al. 1985; Lavin and McPhail 1993). | + + +The parapatric stickleback pair found in the Misty Lake system is one of only three known to occur; it is invaluable to the study of evolutionary processes. | + + + +Strategies and techniques to deal with exotic introductions need to be determined. | + + +Lakes and their tributaries on the northwest coast of North America and on northern Vancouver Island should continue to be surveyed for the presence of similar lake-stream stickleback pairs. | + + + +The boundaries of the Misty Lake Ecological Reserve should capture the entire drainage area of the inlet; the highway rest stop should be moved outside of the watershed; fish passage under the highway should be moved, and regular monitoring programs should be established to determine trends stickleback abundance. If a realignment of the highway is planned, it should be placed outside of the Misty lake watershed. | + +Monitoring plans and strategies to deal with exotic species introductions need to be developed. | + + + +Ptolemy, J. | + +February 10, 2005 | + + +
| + AFCPA03040 + | ++ Gasterosteus sp. 2 + | + ++ + | Enos Lake Limnetic Stickleback | + ++ + + + | SX | + +March 30, 2018 | + + +March 30, 2018 | + +The limnetic form of Enos Lake Stickleback was one of two sympatric forms endemic to a single lake on Vancouver Island. It is considered extinct in wild because both forms have collapsed into a single hybrid swarm with no evidence of any pure or parental forms remaining. The likely cause is the introduction of signal crayfish and/or habitat degredation. | + + + +Z = 0 (Zero) | + + +0 | + + +The limnetic form of Enos Lake Stickelback, found only in Enos Lake, Vancouver Island, has now become a hybridized swarm and no longer exists (National Recovery Team for Stickleback Species Pairs 2007; COSEWIC 2012l; Rudman and Schluter 2016). | + + +Z = 0 | + + +0 | + + ++ + + | + + + | + + + + | Z = 0 (zero) | + + +Only one occurrence existed, which was Enos Lake, Vancouver Island. | + + +A = None (zero) | + + ++ + + | + + + + | A = None | + + ++ + + | Z = Zero, no individuals known extant | + + +All have collapsed to a hybrid swarm with no pure limnetics (or benthics) surviving (National Recovery Team for Stickleback Species Pairs 2007). Formerly, Matthews (2001, cited by Pedan 2001) calculated numbers of limnetics to be about 15,000 to 25,000 (0.015 probability) (Peden 2001). | + + + + + +A = Very high | + + ++ + + + | A = Decline of >90% | + + ++ + + | A = Decline of >90% | + ++ + + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + ++ + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + ++ + + | "Reverse speciation, marked by the dissolution of the genetic differences between ecotypes, occurred between 1994 and 2002 in one species pair inhabiting Enos Lake, leaving a single hybrid population with a mix of benthic and limnetic alleles." (Rudman and Schluter 2016) | + + + ++ + + | + + + + | + + | + + + + | Lozoway, K.R. and L. Ramsay (2010); L. Gelling (2018) | + +March 30, 2018 | + + +
| + AFCPA03050 + | ++ Gasterosteus sp. 3 + | + ++ + | Enos Lake Benthic Stickleback | + ++ + + + | SX | + +April 30, 2018 | + + +April 30, 2018 | + +The benthic form of Enos Lake Stickleback was one of two sympatric forms endemic to a single lake on Vancouver Island. It is considered extinct in wild because both forms have collapsed into a single hybrid swarm with no evidence of any pure or parental forms remaining. The likely cause is the introduction of signal crayfish and/or habitat degredation. | + + + +Z = 0 (Zero) | + + ++ + + | The benthic form of Enos Lake Stickelback, found only in Enos Lake, Vancouver Island, has now become a hybridized swarm and no longer exists (National Recovery Team for Stickleback Species Pairs 2007; COSEWIC 2012l; Rudman and Schluter 2016). | + + +Z = 0 | + + +0 | + + ++ + + | + + + | + + + + | Z = 0 (zero) | + + +Only one occurrence existed, which was Enos Lake, Vancouver Island. | + + +A = None (zero) | + + ++ + + | + + + + | A = None | + + ++ + + | Z = Zero, no individuals known extant | + + +All have collapsed to a hybrid swarm with no pure limnetics (or benthics) surviving (National Recovery Team for Stickleback Species Pairs 2007). | + + + + + +A = Very high | + + ++ + + + | A = Decline of >90% | + + ++ + + | A = Decline of >90% | + ++ + + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + ++ + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + ++ + + | "Reverse speciation, marked by the dissolution of the genetic differences between ecotypes, occurred between 1994 and 2002 in one species pair inhabiting Enos Lake, leaving a single hybrid population with a mix of benthic and limnetic alleles." (Rudman and Schluter 2016) | + + + ++ + + | + + + + | + + | + + + + | Lozoway, K.R. and L. Ramsay (2010); L. Gelling (2018) | + +March 30, 2018 | + + +
| + AFCPA03060 + | ++ Gasterosteus sp. 4 + | + ++ + | Paxton Lake Limnetic Stickleback | + ++ + + + | S1 | + +January 31, 1992 | + + +March 30, 2018 | + +Paxton Lake Limnetic Stickleback is restricted to Paxton Lake on the Sunshine Coast. Potential threats include exotic introductions and excessive draw-down of lake. | + + + +A = <100 square km | + + ++ + + | Paxton Lake Benthic and Limnetic Threespine Sticklebacks are restricted to Paxton Lake on Texada Island, Sunshine Coast. The caluclated extent of occurrence is <0.31km2 (COSEWIC 2010h) | + + +C = 3-5 | + + +8 | + + ++ + + | The area of occupancy is 8km2, or 4 2x2km grid cells (COSEWIC 2010h). | + + ++ + + + | A = 1 - 5 | + + +Only found in one small lake. | + + +B = 1 - 3 | + + ++ + + | The land adjacent to the lake is privately owned and water extraction from the lake is licensed; limestone is quarried from open pit areas within the watershed; and the area also has high value for future development (Hatfield and Ptolemy 2001). Forest harvesting also occurs within the watershed. | + + + +A = None | + + +There are no habitat protection provisions specifically for Paxton Lake Benthic and Limnetic Threespine Sticklebacks (COSEWIC 2010h). | + + +G = 100,000 - 1,000,000 individuals | + + +Only a single study has been conducted (Nomura 2005) to estimate abundance of benthics and limnetics (males only) in Paxton Lake; the approximate number of matures males is 90,000 (COSEWIC 2010h). | + + + + + +A = Very high | + + +2018: The primary threat to the Paxton Lake Benthic Threespine Stickleback is the introduction of an invasive species, as previous introductions in other stickleback species pair lakes have led to the extinction or hybridization within those lakes (COSEWIC 2010). 2005: The major threat to all stickleback populations is the introduction of exotics, especially piscivorous fish species such as catfish (Ictalurus nebulosus) and pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus) (Hatfield and Ptolemy 2001). Introduced crayfish are also a concern (Oosenbrug et al. 2002). In the past, water extractions for copper mining activity resulted in annual drawdowns of 2.75 m (Larson 1976); however, water use has decreased dramatically under present ownership (Hatfield and Ptolemy 2001). Sediment delivery to lakes, resulting from land and forest development, may lead to increased turbidity and disruption of assortative mating between limnetic and benthic species; hybridization could lead to loss of reproductive potential and increase the likelihood of collapse of both species (Kraak et al. 2001; Oosenbrug et al. 2002; Wood 2003). The degree and duration of turbidity that could precipitate a collapse of these species is unknown. |
+
+
+
+G = Relatively Stable (<=10% change) | + + +Probably stable. | + + +EH = Decline of <50% to increase of <25% | + +Unknown, but population declines may have occurred in the past due to large water extractions (Larson 1976). | + + + +A=Highly vulnerable | + +Evidence from the extinction of the Hadley Lake species pair and the sudden hybridization of the Enos Lake pair suggest that these sympatric species pairs are highly vulnerable to the introduction of exotic species and reduced water clarity. | + + +A=Very narrow. Specialist or community with key requirements scarce. | + +Inferred from the small number of sites where sympatric species pairs of threespine stickleback that have been found. | + + ++ + + + | + + + | + + + + | + + | . | + + + +Ptolemy, J. (2005); L. Gelling (2018) | + +March 30, 2018 | + + +
| + AFCPA03070 + | ++ Gasterosteus sp. 5 + | + ++ + | Paxton Lake Benthic Stickleback | + ++ + + + | S1 | + +January 31, 1992 | + + +March 30, 2018 | + +Paxton Lake Benthic Stickleback is restricted to Paxton Lake on the Sunshine Coast. Potential threats include exotic introductions and excessive draw-down of lake. | + + + +A = <100 square km | + + ++ + + | Paxton Lake Benthic and Limnetic Threespine Sticklebacks are restricted to Paxton Lake on Texada Island, Sunshine Coast. The caluclated extent of occurrence is <0.31km2 (COSEWIC 2010h). | + + +C = 3-5 | + + +8 | + + ++ + + | The area of occupancy is 8km2, or 4 2x2km grid cells (COSEWIC 2010h). | + + ++ + + + | A = 1 - 5 | + + +Only found in one small lake. | + + +B = 1 - 3 | + + ++ + + | The land adjacent to the lake is privately owned and a limestone quarry operates in part of the watershed; the area also has high value for future development (Hatfield and Ptolemy 2001). Forest harvesting also occurs within the watershed. | + + + +A = None | + + +There are no habitat protection provisions specifically for Paxton Lake Benthic and Limnetic Threespine Sticklebacks (COSEWIC 2010h). | + + +G = 100,000 - 1,000,000 individuals | + + +Only a single study has been conducted (Nomura 2005) to estimate abundance of benthics and limnetics (males only) in Paxton Lake; the approximate number of matures males is 90,000 (COSEWIC 2010h). | + + + + + +A = Very high | + + +2018: The primary threat to the Paxton Lake Benthic Threespine Stickleback is the introduction of an invasive species, as previous introductions in other stickleback species pair lakes have led to the extinction or hybridization of the stickleback species pairs within those lakes (COSEWIC 2010h). 2005: The major threat to all stickleback populations is the introduction of exotics, especially piscivorous fish species such as catfish (Ictalurus nebulosus) and pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus) (Hatfield and Ptolemy 2001). Introduced crayfish are also a concern (Oosenbrug et al. 2002). In the past, water extractions for copper mining activity resulted in annual drawdowns of 2.75 m (Larson 1976); however, water use has decreased dramatically under present ownership (Hatfield and Ptolemy 2001). Sediment delivery to lakes, resulting from land and forest development, may lead to increased turbidity and disruption of assortative mating between limnetic and benthic species; hybridization could lead to loss of reproductive potential and increase the likelihood of collapse of both species (Kraak et al. 2001; Oosenbrug et al. 2002; Wood 2003). The degree and duration of turbidity that could precipitate a collapse of these species is unknown. |
+
+
+
+G = Relatively Stable (<=10% change) | + + +Probably stable. | + + +EH = Decline of <50% to increase of <25% | + +Unknown, but population declines may have occurred in the past due to large water extractions (Larson 1976). | + + + +A=Highly vulnerable | + +Evidence from the extinction of the Hadley Lake species pair and the sudden hybridization of the Enos Lake pair suggest that these sympatric species pairs are highly vulnerable to the introduction of exotic species and reduced water clarity. | + + +A=Very narrow. Specialist or community with key requirements scarce. | + +Inferred from the small number of sites where sympatric species pairs of threespine stickleback that have been found | + + ++ + + + | + + + | + + + + | + + | + + + + | Ptolemy, J. (2005); L. Gelling (2018) | + +March 30, 2018 | + + +
| + AFCGA01010 + | ++ Hiodon alosoides + | + ++ + | Goldeye | + ++ + + + | S3 | + +March 10, 2004 | + + +May 15, 2019 | + +Goldeye is found in low numbers and occurrences within the Peace and Liard River systems in northeastern BC. | + + + +F = 20,000-200,000 square km | + + ++ + + | Goldeye is found in the lower Peace and lower Liard drainage systems (McPhail 2007). | + + ++ + + | + + + | U = Unknown | + + ++ + + | + + + + | BC = 6 - 80 | + + ++ + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + | + + + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + | U = Unknown | + + +Juveniles are present in the Fort. Nelson River and there may be a breeding population in the B.C. portion of the Liard system (Klinkenberg ND, accessed November 2nd, 2018). "All investigations in British Columbia documented low numbers of goldeye; higher numbers were recorded in the Alberta section of the Peace River." (P and E Environmental Consultants Ltd. 2002). | + + + + + +Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + + | U = Unknown | + + ++ + + | U = Unknown | + ++ + + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + ++ + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + +During a study in 2002, Goldeye were concentrated at tributary confluences in B.C., but in Alberta, they were distributed widely throughout the mainstem Peace River; this may be due to warmer temperatures at tributaries vs. the mainstem (13 degrees vs. 17 degrees C). (P and E Environmental Consultants Ltd. 2002). | + + ++ + + + | + + + | + + + + | + + | + + + + | Gelling L. | + +January 31, 2019 | + + +
| + AFCJB16022 + | ++ Hybognathus hankinsoni - Pacific group + | + +Hybognathus hankinsoni pop. 2 | + +Brassy Minnow - Pacific Group | + ++ + + + | S2S3 | + +January 02, 2012 | + + +February 01, 2019 | + +Brassy Minnow, pacific group (pop 2.) is found within a small range in southeastern BC. Threats include the presence of exotic species, impacts from agriculture and urban development and loss of habitat and connectivity between water bodies. Past declines in both the long and short term have been documented. | + + + +D = 1,000-5,000 square km | + + ++ + + | The Brassy Minnow, pacific population occurs in within the lower Fraser valley within Delta, Westham Island, Deer and Burnaby Lakes and Brunette River, and to a more limited extent, in the Sumas River and sloughs of Richmond (Nowosad 2011). | + + +U = Unknown | + + ++ + + | U = Unknown | + + +The area of occupancy for the Pacific group of brassy minnow is unknown. | + + ++ + + + | C = 21 - 80 | + + +Brassy minnow were captured in 22 sites out of 60 sampled sites in the Lower Mainland of BC (Nowosad 2011). The sampled sites included areas with historical records of brassy minnow occurrence (Nowosad 2011). McPhail (2007) also recorded approximately 22 occurrences in the Lower Mainland. | + + +CD = 4 - 40 | + + ++ + + | Sites in Delta, including Westham Island, and Burnaby (inlcuding Deer Lake, Burnaby Lake and the Brunette River) likely have good viability, as large numbers of brassy minnow were captured in those areas (Nowosad 2011). However, some sites produced very low catches of brassy minnow (I.e., Richmond sloughs and Sumas River; Nowosad 2011) and therefore it is likely that not all of the 22 sites have good viability. Furthermore, some appear to be seriously impacted by introductions of invasive species (Nowosad 2011). | + + + +Rank Factor not assessed | + + +Brassy minnows are protected under the Fisheries Act, but it is not known whether they are present in any provincial parks. | + + +EF = 2,500 - 100,000 individuals | + + +In Westham Island sloughs, 1588 brassy minnow were captured (Nowosad 2011). In Deer Lake and Burnaby Lake - Brunette River, 225 and 137 brassy minnows were captured, respectively (Nowosad 2011). Sites in the sloughs of Delta captured 169 fish (Nowosad 2011). Sumas River sampling caught only 8 fish, while sloughs in Richmond resulted in the capture of 26 fish (Nowosad 2011). Using a sampling efficiency of 0.3 (Bryant 2000), there would be approximately 7000 fish present in the Lower Mainland region (data from Nowosad 2011), although this is likely a conservative estimate. | + + + + + +B = High | + + +The threats faced by the brassy minnow include impacts from agriculture and urban environments, negative effects from drying up of ditches and sloughs (both due to loss of habitat and loss of connectivity between water bodies), and presence of exotic species (and, in some locations, subsequent extirpation from historic habitats) (Nowosad 2011). McPhail (2007) suggests that this species can occur in broad conditions, including clear/stained lakes, swampy streams and bogs, turbid rivers, polluted and unpolluted ditches and brackish estuaries. | + + + +FG = Decline of <30% to relatively stable | + + +The brassy minnow is very abundant in only a few sites (Delta, Westham Island, and in Burnaby), but these sites are believed to have a stable population. The brassy minnow populations in the Sumas River and in the sloughs of Richmond are believed to be in decline, as the abundances are very low. The degree to which they are declining is difficult to determine given lack of quantitative data but this region has seen a significant increase in invasive fish species presence - several are known to be piscivorous. Declines within the past 3 generations are likely to be 5-10%. | + + +EF = Decline of 10-50% | + +The distribution of brassy minnow in the Lower Mainland has declined since the 1950s (Nowosad 2011). While there are historical records of the brassy minnow being captured in the Coquitlam, Pitt, Alouette, and Stave rivers, as well as in the Hatzic, Nicomen and Vedder drainages, none were captured during a recent study, and only low numbers were captured in Richmond sloughs and Sumas River; i.e. only 2 of 8 sites still contained brassy minnow (Nowosad 2011).The brassy minnow is currently very abundant in Westham Island, and reasonably abundant in Deer and Burnaby lakes and the sloughs of Delta (Nowosad 2011), and therefore these populations are likely to be relatively stable. Long-term declines in the range of 10-50% would not be surprising. | + + + +C=Not intrinsically vulnerable | + +The brassy minnow matures after one winter, females produce up to 1000 eggs, and in some years brassy minnow have a second fall spawning period in the late fall in the Lower Mainland (McPhail 2007). However, the dispersal capability of the brassy minnow is unknown, and it has been extirpated from sites without recolonization occurring. | + + +D=Broad. Generalist or community with all key requirements common. | + +The brassy minnow is able to survive in small lakes, slow-moving small streams, and drainage ditches, as well as in both clear and stained or turbid water (McPhail 2007). They were found in large numbers in sloughs, ditches and lakes of lower mainland region (Nowosad 2011). | + + ++ + + + | + + + | + + + + | + + | + + + + | Patricia Woodruff, L. Gelling | + +February 01, 2019 | + + +
| + AFCJB16021 + | ++ Hybognathus hankinsoni - western Arctic group + | + +Hybognathus hankinsoni pop. 1 | + +Brassy Minnow - Western Arctic Group | + ++ + + + | S3S4 | + +January 02, 2012 | + + +January 02, 2012 | + +Disjunct populations with a number of threats, however there is a wide range and seemingly stable population. | + + + +EF = 5,000-200,000 square km | + + ++ + + | The brassy minnow was captured in the Peace River area, near Parsnip Reach of Willison Reservoir; in the Summit Lake area of the Upper Fraser River; and in tributaries to the Horsefly and Quesnel Rivers in the Mid-Fraser area (Nowosad 2011). It has also been recorded to be abundant in lakes and sluggish streams near Vanderhoof and Prince George (McPhail 2007). A conservative estimate would be approximately 20000km2 based on the information in McPhail (2007) and Nowosad (2011). These populations are widespread but disjunct, and are isolated from the lower Fraser River population (Nowosad 2011). | + + +U = Unknown | + + ++ + + | U = Unknown | + + +The area of occupancy for the brassy minnow in the western Arctic region is unknown. | + + ++ + + + | C = 21 - 80 | + + +A directed survey running from 2004-2009 confirmed presence in 12 waterbodies in the Upper Peace (Peace Williston Reservoir), Upper Fraser (Summit Lake/Crooked River) and 2 waterbodies in the mid-Fraser (Horsefly River) watersheds (R. Zemlak, unpublished data provided to S. Pollard in 2010). The species appears to be in very disjunct scattered waterbodies but there are undoubtedly a number of occurrences that have not been surveyed. | + + +EF = 41 to >125 | + + ++ + + | It is likely that most if not all of the recorded occurrences have good viability: the Peace River and Upper Fraser regions had high catch per unit effort (CPUE) (Nowosad 2011), and McPhail (2007) stated that the areas around Prince George and Vanderhoof had abundant brassy minnows. | + + + +Rank Factor not assessed | + + +Brassy minnows are protected under the Fisheries Act, but are not found in any provincial parks. At one time, brassy minnow were present in the esker lakes between Prince George and Vanderhoof (McPhail 2007). However, these lakes became a provincial park and brook trout were introduced for angling purposes; brassy minnow disappeared after that introduction (McPhail 2007). | + + +FG = 10,000 - 1,000,000 individuals | + + +Sampling in the Peace River and Upper Fraser River had higher catch per unit effort (CPUE), measured as fish caught per hour (0.083 and approximately 0.07, respectively), than for the same month in the Lower Mainland (approximately 0.02);sampling in the mid-Fraser had slightly lower CPUE (0.016) than the same month in the Lower Mainland (Nowosad 2011). McPhail (2007) stated that the brassy minnow was abundant in lakes and low velocity streams near Vanderhoof and Prince George. The overall (year-long) CPUE for the Lower Mainland was similar to the CPUE in the Peace and Upper Fraser Rivers; over two thousand fish were captured in the Lower Mainland in that year (Nowosad 2011). At an estimated sampling efficiency of 0.3 for minnow traps (Bryant 2000), there would be at least 7000 fish in the Upper Fraser site, and even more brassy minnow would be present in the Peace River site (using data from Nowosad 2011). Therefore, a conservative estimate of population size for the western Arctic region would be 100,000 individuals. | + + + + + +CD = Medium - low | + + +Many population declines observed in minnows have been due to river fragmentation and the construction of dams (Nowosad 2011). The introductions of invasive species have also caused population declines in minnows (Nowosad 2011); McPhail (2007) stated that the introduction of eastern brook trout into the esker lakes around Prince George and Vanderhoof caused the extirpation of the brassy minnow in those locations. It is unknown what effect any increase in oil and gas development or mining will have on the brassy minnow populations in the western Arctic. Due to the disjunct nature of the populations, any further changes in water connectivity (i.e., through dams or other barriers) would be detrimental to this population. Possibly the greatest threat is with respect to the fact that the habitats in which Brassy Minnow is often found do not garner attention as key fish habitats; therefore, there may be less inclination to protect these waterbodies to the degree that salmonid-bearing streams are. | + + + +G = Relatively Stable (<=10% change) | + + +The Upper Fraser and Peace regions likely have very stable stocks of fish. The trend for the mid-Fraser population is unknown. | + + +U = Unknown | + +The long term trend for the Peace regions is likely to have declined, due to the creation of Williston Reservoir (Randy Zemlak, pers. comm.). It is also possible that there has been a slight decline in the mid-Fraser population (as fewer fish were captured in this region than in the other two regions) and in the Upper Fraser area (when eastern brook trout caused the extirpation of brassy minnow in the esker lakes around Prince George and Vanderhoof; McPhail 2007). | + + + +B=Moderately vulnerable | + +Due to the isolation and disjunct nature of these brassy minnow populations (Nowosad 2011), extirpated populations in some areas might not be able to reestablish naturally. However, at present they appear to be abundant in this region (Nowosad 2011). | + + +C=Moderate. Generalist or community with some key requirements scarce. | + +Brassy minnow typically occur in small lakes, slow-moving streams and drainage ditches, and can be found in both stained or turbid and clear water (McPhail 2007). | + + +The "western" population of brassy minnow (including BC, Alberta and Saskatchewan) does appear to be distinct based on mtDNA from "eastern" populations (i.e., in Ontario and Quebec) (Nowosad 2011). However, there did not appear to be genetic differentiation between the Pacific (Lower Fraser/Lower Mainland) and western Arctic (Upper Fraser/Peace River) populations (Nowosad 2011). As the two populations occur in two different Freshwater Biogeographic Zones (Pacific and western Arctic; Madrak 2003), and their distribution is disjunct, they are being considered separately. | + + + ++ + + | + + + + | + + | + + + + | Patricia Woodruff (reviewed by S. Pollard) | + +February 18, 2011 | + + +
| + AFBAA02092 + | ++ Lampetra richardsoni pop. 1 + | + ++ + | Western Brook Lamprey (Morrison Creek Population) | + ++ + + + | S1 | + +March 09, 2000 | + + +May 15, 2019 | + +No other populations of this species exist anywhere else in the world. Due to its restricted distribution and threatened habitat, this polymorphic species is rare and may be in danger of extinction. | + + + +A = <100 square km | + + +9 | + + +Only known from the Morrison Creek watershed (9.3 km2), on Vancouver Island (COSEWIC 2010j). No other varieties of lamprey similar to this one have ever been reported anywhere in the world. | + + ++ + + | 8 | + + +B = 5-10 | + + +The distribution within Morrison Creek is poorly known; the creek flows for approximately 8 km before it joins the Puntledge River, which flows into the Straight of Georgia (COSEWIC 2010j). The headwaters consist of 90 ha of wetlands joined by 19 km of stream channel (Morrison Creek Streamkeepers 2005). The area of occupancy is 8 km2 using a 1km x 1 km overlaid grid, and 12 km2, using a 2km x 2km overlaid grid (COSEWIC 2010j). | + + ++ + + + | A = 1 - 5 | + + +A polymorphic population consisting of the more common non-parasitic form and an unusual non-anadromous parasitic form known to occur only in Morrison Creek, on Vancouver Island. | + + +A = None (zero) | + + ++ + + | Development pressure in the area has resulted in habitat degradation (Beamish et al. 2001). | + + + +A = None | + + +Neither the stream or the adjacent land is in a protected area. | + + +U = Unknown | + + +"No population estimates exist for either marifuga or typical L. richardsoni in Morrison Creek, and none are possible given existing data. The marifuga form has been reported to be caught less frequently than typical spawning stage L. richardsoni (Beamish and Withler 1986; J. Palmer pers. comm. 2008)." (COSEWIC 2010j). | + + + + + +B = High | + + +From COSEWIC 2010j: "Forest harvest is declining in the watershed but urban development pressure is increasing. Both may impact Morrison Creek through changes to its flow regime, riparian vegetation loss, sediment deposition and other effects. Assuming the marifuga form does feed within Morrison Creek, declines in Pacific salmon abundance may limit food availability. Although no impacts have been detected to date, a leaking landfill site in the headwaters is a concern. The extremely restricted distribution of Western Brook Lamprey (Morrison Creek Population) exacerbates its vulnerability to all threats." | + + + +U = Unknown | + + +Unknown (COSEWIC 2010j); however, probably stable until residential development began encroaching on the mainstem resulting in habitat changes; another recent concern is the short-term and long-term effects of highway construction on fish habitat in Morrison Creek (Beamish et al. 2001). | + + +U = Unknown | + ++ + + + | C=Not intrinsically vulnerable | + +Ability to vary its life history and produce both parasitic and non-parasitic forms should make them less vulnerable. | + + +AB=Very narrow to narrow. | + +Inferred from extremely restricted distribution. | + + +Genetic and morphological evidence indicate that the two forms (parasitic and non-parasitic) belong to a single species complex. It is not known if they breed as independent species lines. | + + + ++ + + | Reliable population estimates and trend information are high priorities. Knowledge of the specific habitat characteristics required to support this polymorphic population is lacking. | + + + ++ + | + + + + | Gelling, L. | + +May 15, 2019 | + + +
| + AFCMA01010 + | ++ Lota lota + | + ++ + | Burbot | + ++ + + + | S4S5 | + +May 15, 2019 | + + +May 15, 2019 | + +There are many occurrences of Burbot found within a large range in BC; overfishing is a potential threat. | + + + +G = 200,000-2,500,000 square km | + + ++ + + | Burbot are widespread throughout the interior of BC, although absent from coastal drainages and islands (McPhail 2007). | + + ++ + + | + + + | + + + | + + + | + + + + | E = > 300 | + + +Burbot are found throughout the interior of BC, including the Skeena, Fraser and Columbia rivers (and associated rivers and lakes (McPhail 2007). | + + +Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + | + + + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + | FG = 10,000 - 1,000,000 individuals | + + +Burbot abundance estimates in lakes throughout BC range from a low of around 100 in some Skeena region systems (Giroux 2005) to 10,000 in Moyie Lake in the Kootenays (Stephenson and Evans 2014). | + + + + + +CD = Medium - low | + + +Burbot are widespread throughout the interior of the province, but are vulnerable to over-fishing and environmental changes in large rivers and reservoirs (Ahrens and Korman 2002; Giroux 2005). | + + + +F = Decline of 10-30% | + + +It is believed there is declining abundance in some systems (Robinson 2013). | + + +F = Decline of 10-30% | + +Southern populations have shown marked declines in burbot abundance (McPhail 2007). | + + + +B=Moderately vulnerable | + +Burbot do not reach sexual maturity until at least age 7-8 (McPhail 2007). | + + +B=Narrow. Specialist or community with key requirements common. | + +Burbot are a cool-water fish, requiring temperatures of less than 18 degrees Celsius (McPhail 2007). | + + ++ + + + | + + + | + + + + | + + | + + + + | Woodruff, P. | + +March 25, 2015 | + + +
| + AFCMA01011 + | ++ Lota lota pop. 1 + | + ++ + | Burbot (Lower Kootenay Population) | + ++ + + + | S1 | + +October 04, 2001 | + + +May 15, 2019 | + +It is estimated that less than 50 Burbot are left within Kootenay Lake and River; thus, this population is extremely vulnerable to threats. Since 2009, Burbot from Moyie Lake have been released annually into the lake and river. If breeding is confirmed to be successful, this population will need to be reassessed. | + + + +C = 250-1,000 square km | + + ++ + + | Lower Kootenay burbot are found in the Kootenai River and Kootenay Lake (Neufeld et al. 2011). | + + ++ + + | + + + | + + + | + + + | + + + + | A = 1 - 5 | + + +There is a remnant wild population remaining in Kootenay lake (Stephenson and Evans 2014). | + + +A = None (zero) | + + ++ + + | No fish have been caught at historic spawning locations in Kootenay Lake (Neufeld 2005); only 3 fish were caught in the lake itself (Stephenson and Evans 2014). | + + + +Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + | A = 1 - 50 individuals | + + +Neufeld et al. (2011) believe there to be less than 50 adult fish in the Kootenai River. | + + + + + +A = Very high | + + +Ahrens and Korman (2002) identified the competition for cladocerans with introduced mysid shrimp to be the possible mechanism for the juvenile burbot recruitment failure observed before 1970; Neufeld et al. (2011) identified logging, mining, and dam activities, as well as habitat loss and declining productivity as possible threats.There has been a lot of work on restoring lower Kootenay burbot, including the closure of fisheries and the modification of dam operations (Neufeld et al. 2011). However, the extremely small size of the population exacerbates the effect of any threat and any further loss in the number of fish increases both genetic risks (such as inbreeding) and demographic risks (such as the loss of certain stocks). There is still a problem with recruitment into the population, so as older fish suffer mortality there are few to replace them (Neufeld et al. 2011). | + + + +G = Relatively Stable (<=10% change) | + + +There is a remnant wild population remaining in the system, at low numbers (Neufeld et al. 2011; Stephenson and Evans 2014). | + + +A = Decline of >90% | + +It is believed that burbot have been extirpated from their historic spawning sites and have been declared functionally extinct (Neufeld et al. 2011). | + + + +Rank Factor not assessed | + ++ + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + ++ + + | Hatchery reared Burbot have been released into the Kootenay River and Lake annually since 2009. Catch and growth rates suggest that released burbot are surviving in the historical spawn locations in the river and "although data suggest early success of hatchery origin burbot within the river, several data gaps remain..."(Stephenson and Evans 2018). Once successful breeding is confirmed, the status rank of this population will need to be reassessed (L. Gelling, pers. comm. 2019). | + + + ++ + + | + + + + | + + | + + + + | Woodruff, P. | + +March 25, 2015 | + + +
| + AFCJB28120 + | ++ Notropis atherinoides + | + ++ + | Emerald Shiner | + ++ + + + | SU | + +May 10, 2010 | + + +May 15, 2019 | + +Only one specimen from one site has ever been confirmed in BC when it was collected in 1960 (McPhail 2007; McPhail, J.D, D. O'Brien and J. DeGisi. 1992). Overview of the distribution and biology of fishes in the Petitot River system, Northeastern British Columbia. Report for BC Environment, Peace Subregion). Additional collection efforts since 1960 have not found any additional individuals, so unknown if extant. | + + + +A = <100 square km | + + ++ + + | Known from only one site in British Columbia: the Fort Nelson River at Old Fort Nelson. | + + +U = Unknown | + + ++ + + | + + + | + + + | + + + + | ZA = 0 - 5 | + + +Known from only one site. It has not been collected since, despite several concerted efforts in the same area (Burrows pers. comm., McPhail et. al. undated (1998)). | + + +Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + | + + + + | A = None | + + +The only occurrence known is not protected; few (if any) appropriate, protected streams in the Fort Nelson/Liard drainage. | + + +U = Unknown | + + +Unknown, but this species is usually abundant in other jurisdictions where found. | + + + + + +C = Medium | + + +Parts of Liard/Fort Nelson drainage have been proposed as sites for hydroelectric development. Other possible risks include forest harvesting, exotic and other fish introductions or taxonomic difficulties (Haas 1998). There also are the inherent risks that face a single population. |
+
+
+
+U = Unknown | + + +Unknown. | + + +U = Unknown | + ++ + + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + ++ + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + ++ + + | + + + + | Life history and biological requirements assessed. | + + +The Fort Nelson/Liard drainage is poorly known in terms of distribution of small fish. There have been a couple of attempts at re-collecting this fish which have been unsuccessful, verification of its continued existence should be a priority. | + + + ++ + | + + + + | Cannings, S.G., Pollard, S. and Ramsay, L. | + +May 17, 2010 | + + +
| + AFCJB28550 + | ++ Notropis hudsonius + | + ++ + | Spottail Shiner | + ++ + + + | S1S2 | + +May 10, 2010 | + + +May 15, 2019 | + +The only confirmed native population of Spottail Shiner is in Maxhamish Lake, in northeast B.C. | + + + +A = <100 square km | + + ++ + + | Restricted to the far northeast corner of the province; until recently, known only from Maxhamish Lake (Royal B.C. Museum collections), but further collecting may reveal more sites (Peden 1990). Introduced into Charlie Lake 1986 (Hammond 1986). Have been found in mainstem Peace River since 1989 and in Beatton River since 1983 (Fisheries Information Summary System). This range extension may be a result of flow regulation. | + + +D = 6-25 | + + +12 | + + ++ + + | The area of Maxhamish Lake is approximately 50 km2 (12 4km2 grid cells). | + + ++ + + + | A = 1 - 5 | + + +Maxhamish Lake may be the only native indigenous population. However, records from other locations listed in FISS (e.g. Tupper River) that are not within the influence of Charlie Lake could represent other native populations. They were introduced to Charlie Lake in 1986. It is unknown how far the introduced population has spread. Additional introductions are also likely due to the use of this species as a popular bait fish.This species is best surveyed at night therefore are likely under represented in regular surveys. | + + +Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + | + + + + | B = 1 - 3 | + + +Maxhamish Lake is in a protected area. | + + +U = Unknown | + + +Unknown, but this species can be very abundant in lakes and large rivers elsewhere in its range. | + + + + + +CD = Medium - low | + + +There is extensive mineral exploration and logging occurring in the north east of the province which means that access as well as potential pollutants may increase in time. Other possible risks include exotic and other fish introductions or taxonomic difficulties as well as the inherent risks that face a single population (Haas 1998). | + + + +G = Relatively Stable (<=10% change) | + + +DeGisi (2000) found there was no indication of a reduction in population; however he does qualify with "one reconnaissance inventory does not provide an adequate basis for quantitative statements about the abundance of fish populations or how this may have changed with time". | + + +U = Unknown | + ++ + + + | C=Not intrinsically vulnerable | + ++ + + | C=Moderate. Generalist or community with some key requirements scarce. | + ++ + + | + + + + | Life history and biological information and requirements. | + + +The far northeastern corner of the province is poorly known with regard to fish distribution. | + + + ++ + | + + + + | Cannings, S.G. and Pollard, S. | + +May 17, 2010 | + + +
| + AFCHA02088 + | ++ Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi + | + ++ + | Cutthroat Trout, lewisi subspecies | + +Westslope Cutthroat Trout | + + + +S2S3 | + +April 29, 2018 | + + +March 29, 2018 | + +Declining population with wide-spread significant threats. | + + + +F = 20,000-200,000 square km | + + +85,183 | + + +COSEWIC 2016q | + + +G = 501-2,500 | + + +6,824 | + + ++ + + | COSEWIC 2016q | + + ++ + + + | E = > 300 | + + +Approximately 928 locations (could be as high as 1319 if waterbodies where at least one occurrence of westslope cutthroat trout are included). COSEWICq 2016 | + + +BF = 1 to >125 | + + ++ + + | Some of the subpopulations appear to be stable; however, it is inferred that the number of locations and subpopulations have declined, due to hybridization with Rainbow Trout and ongoing development that impacts available habitat (COSEWIC 2016q). | + + + +BE = 1 to >40 | + + +There are EOs within Provincial and National Parks, however fishing is allowed within these areas. There are also locations where only a portion of the stream is allowed within the protected area. In the East Kootenays, only 16% of the land base is protected; 9% is private ownership, while 75% is open to resource exploration and extraction (COSEWIC 2016q). | + + +FG = 10,000 - 1,000,000 individuals | + + +Numbers of fish per stream are naturally lower than other freshwater salmonids on the order of magnitude of tens to hundreds per stream (Trotter 1987 in Costello and Rubidge 2003). Using the Alberta estimate of 100 fish/stream (12 fish/km) provides a conservative estimate of 92,800 fish (COSEWIC 2016q). Esimates range from 30-45 fish/km in the East Kootenays; 1000 fish in the Upper Bull River; and 3000 fish in the upper Fording River (COSEWIC 2016q). | + + + + + +A = Very high | + + +The main habitat threats include mining, logging, agriculture, hydroelectric development and urbanization. Direct threats come from heavy angling pressure, which is increasing as access increases. Hybridization, particularly with brook and rainbow trout is also a concern with pure populations becoming restricted to isolated headwater streams. This is cited as one of the primary factors of decline in the US (reviewed in Costello and Rubidge 2003). | + + + +FG = Decline of <30% to relatively stable | + + +Many populations are stable, while others are projected to decline due to due to hybridization with introduced trout, loss of habitat from development, increased temperatures resulting from climate change and overfishing (COSEWIC 2016q). | + + +DF = Decline of 10-70% | + +"Dramatic" declines are indicated for this subspecies (Costello and Rubidge 2003). In the Upper Kootenay watershed, many subpopulations have been adversely impacted by hybridization with introduced rainbow rout (hybridization occurring in 78% of the 23 streams tested); the Lodgepole Creek population has likely become a hybrid swarm (COSEWIC 2016q). Creel and snorkel surveys indicate the population is stable in certain systems; however, available habitat is likely decreasing, with subpopulations being concentrated into isolated headwater streams (COSEWIC 2016q). | + + + +B=Moderately vulnerable | + +Subpopulations are generally small; age of maturity ranges from 4-8 years; mean fecundity ranges from 227-459 depending on size ranges; species prefer cold water (COSEWIC 2016q). | + + +B=Narrow. Specialist or community with key requirements common. | + +This species inhabits cold waters and lakes; warming water temperatures due to climate change will reduce the amount of habitat available (COSEWIC 2016q). | + + ++ + + + | + + + | Abundance, especially of mature individuals. | + + + ++ + | + + + + | P. Woodruff and L.R. Ramsay | + +April 13, 2018 | + + +
| + AFCHA0213F + | ++ Oncorhynchus mykiss - large lake piscivore ecotype + | + +Oncorhynchus mykiss pop. 40 | + +Rainbow Trout - Large Lake Piscivore Ecotype | + ++ + + + | S4 | + +January 02, 2012 | + + +January 02, 2012 | + +This is an ecotype that is vulnerable to overfishing and the depletion of the prey base - however it appears to be presently stable and are found over a wide range in the province with good numbers where found. | + + + +G = 200,000-2,500,000 square km | + + ++ + + | The presence of piscivores has been confirmed in: Eutsuk Lake, Quesnel Lake, Shuswap Lake, Okanagan Lake, and Kootenay Lake (Eric Parkinson pers. comm.). Piscivores might also be present in: Pinchi Lake, Morice Lake, Trembleur Lake, Adams Lake, an unnamed lake in the Takla drainage, Francois Lake, Stuart Lake, and Babine Lake (Eric Parkinson, upublished data 2009). The range of confirmed piscivores is approximately 490,000km2. | + + +U = Unknown | + + ++ + + | U = Unknown | + + +The area of occupancy for the large lake piscivorous ecotypes of rainbow trout is unknown. | + + ++ + + + | B = 6 - 20 | + + +The large lake piscivore ecotype is proposed to occur in up to 13 known lakes (Eric Parkinson, unpublished data 2009). A prerequisite for likelihood of containing this ecotype is large lake size (mostly over 10,000 hectares) and presence of kokanee. There are 5 confirmed lakes and 8 possible additional lakes (Eric Parkinson, unpublished data 2009). A few other smaller lakes (e.g. Khtada Lake) may also contain piscivorous rainbow trout; however, number of EOs (or lakes) is still undoubtedly <20. | + + +CD = 4 - 40 | + + ++ + + | It is believed that most if not all of the systems where piscivores are present have good viability although juvenile rearing in some tributaries of these lakes may be limited (e.g. by water availability e.g. Mission Creek). | + + + +Rank Factor not assessed | + + +Only four of the lakes where piscivores are or might be found are present in at least part of a provincial park. Freshwater habitat is also protected under the federal Fisheries Act. Eutsuk Lake is present in Tweedsmuir North Provincial Park and Protected Area. Shuswap lake is part of a Marine Provincial Park. A portion of Francois Lake is part of the Uncha Mountain Red Hills Provincial Park and the Francois Lake Provincial Park. Stuart Lake is part of the Stuart Lake Marine Provincial Park. A portion of Babine Lake is part of the Sutherland River Provincial Park and Protected Area. | + + +G = 100,000 - 1,000,000 individuals | + + +The peak count for Gerrard rainbow trout spawners (in Kootenay Lake) has averaged 496 fish from 1957-2006 (Harvey Andrusak, pers. comm. 2011). The piscivorous rainbow trout in Quesnel Lake are believed to have a peak count of 500-800 fish in the Horsefly River (Sebastian et al. 2003). For the Adams River (Shuswap Lake), there were 16503 fry and 1967 parr, with a maximum escapement of 390 fish (Bison 1990). The CPUE for rainbow trout in Okanagan Lake is 0.085, which is slightly higher than Kootenay Lake (0.02-0.05, however, anglers in Kootenay tend to target larger fish; Webster 2007). Assuming each system has on average 500 adults escaping, and 20,000 juveniles in the streams, a conservative estimate of popualtion size would be approximately 300,000 fish. | + + + + + +CD = Medium - low | + + +Overfishing by anglers is a potential threat. The integrity of the rearing streams for spawning and juvenile fish can be affected by water withdrawals, sedimentation, and barriers to fish passage (i.e., caused by agriculture and forestry; NCL 2001). There has also been concern about declining prey base (e.g., decreasing kokanee numbers in Kootenay, Okanagan and Quesnel lakes; de Gisi 2003). Threat level is currently considered low overall. | + + + +G = Relatively Stable (<=10% change) | + + +The catch per unit effort (CPUE) of Okanagan Lake rainbow trout has remained stable since the kokanee angling closure in 1996 (0.07 in 1996, compared with 0.085 in 2005; Webster 2007). The Gerrard rainbow trout peak counts have been increasing since 2002 (Harvey Andrusak, pers. comm. 2011). With the efforts to increase kokanee in Kootenay and Okanagan lakes over the past 20 years, and the increasing number of sockeye returning to Quesnel Lake, it is likely that in those systems the population has remained stable or possibly increased. | + + +G = Relatively Stable (<=10% change) | + +In Okanagan and Kootenay Lake, there had been a decline in rainbow trout (as identified by CPUE and peak spawner counts, respectively); however, the numbers in those systems seem to be increasing with the increase in kokanee prey. | + + + +C=Not intrinsically vulnerable | + +Large piscivorous rainbow trout have fecunidities between 3,000 to 14,000 eggs (McPhail 2007). Piscivorous rainbow trout can mature as late as age 4+ (McPhail 2007). | + + +BC=Narrow to moderate. | + +Large piscivorous trout are found in large lakes in BC with a prey base of forage fish (de Gisi 2003). | + + ++ + + + | Reserach needs to be conducted to determine whether this piscivorous ecotype exists in Pinchi Lake, Morice Lake, Trembleur Lake, Adams Lake, an unnamed lake in the Takla drainage, Francois Lake, Stuart Lake, and Babine Lake. | + + ++ + + + | + + | + + + + | Patricia Woodruff (reviewed by S. Pollard) | + +March 18, 2011 | + + +
| + AFCHA0213M + | ++ Oncorhynchus mykiss pop. 46 + | + ++ + | Steelhead Trout - Thompson River Population | + ++ + + + | S1 | + +May 15, 2019 | + + +April 29, 2019 | + +Extremely low population and steep declines. | + + + +F = 20,000-200,000 square km | + + +> 20,000 | + + +COSEWIC 2018d | + + +E = 26-125 | + + +< 500 | + + ++ + + | COSEWIC 2018d | + + ++ + + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + | + + + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + | BC = 50 - 1,000 individuals | + + +There were 177 in 2017, the average or the past three years is 255 (COSEWIC 2018d). | + + + + + +Rank Factor not assessed | + + +A threats calculator was not complete for this population; however, ?This population faces a number of threats in the marine and freshwater environments, many of which are similar to Sockeye Salmon in the Fraser River drainage and Coho Salmon in the Interior Fraser River. Fishery removals for the interior Fraser River Steelhead Trout vary from 15-25% per year, depending on the abundance of Pacific salmon targeted in commercial fisheries.? (COSEWIC 2018d) | + + + +C = Decline of 70-80% | + + +79% decline in the past three generations (COSEWIC 2018d). | + + +Rank Factor not assessed | + ++ + + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + ++ + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + ++ + + | "Thompson Steelhead Trout are endemic to this watershed and rescue is not possible from other Steelhead Trout populations. Rescue from nonanadromous trout within this watershed is unlikely." (COSEWIC 2018d) | + + + ++ + + | + + + + | + + | + + + + | + + | + + + |
| + AFCHA0213N + | ++ Oncorhynchus mykiss pop. 47 + | + ++ + | Steelhead Trout - Chilcotin River Population | + ++ + + + | S1 | + +May 15, 2019 | + + +April 29, 2019 | + +Extremely low population and steep declines. | + + + +F = 20,000-200,000 square km | + + +> 20,000 | + + +from COSEWIC 2018d | + + +E = 26-125 | + + +< 500 | + + ++ + + | from COSEWIC 2018d | + + ++ + + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + | + + + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + | B = 50 - 250 individuals | + + +58 were found in 2017, the average of the past three years is 120 (COSEWIC 2018d) | + + + + + +Rank Factor not assessed | + + +A threats calculator was not complete for this population; however, "This population faces a number of threats in the marine and freshwater environments, many of which are similar to Sockeye Salmon in the Fraser River drainage and Coho Salmon in the Interior Fraser River. Fishery removals for the interior Fraser Steelhead Trout vary from 15-25% per year, depending on the abundance of salmon targeted in commercial fisheries." (COSEWIC 2018d) | + + + +BC = Decline of 70-90% | + + +81% decline in the past three generations (COSEWIC 2018d) | + + +Rank Factor not assessed | + ++ + + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + ++ + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + ++ + + | "Chilcotin Steelhead Trout are endemic to this watershed and rescue is not possible from other Steelhead Trout populations. Rescue from nonanadromous trout within this watershed is unlikely." (COSEWIC 2018d) | + + + ++ + + | + + + + | + + | + + + + | Ramsay, L.R. | + +April 23, 2019 | + + +
| + AFCHA02049 + | ++ Oncorhynchus nerka pop. 8 + | + ++ + | Sockeye Salmon - Sakinaw Lake Population | + ++ + + + | S1 | + +January 31, 2020 | + + +January 31, 2020 | + +Sakinaw Sockeye Salmon are anadromous; returning from the Pacific Ocean to spawn within a single lake, Sakinaw Lake. They face significant threats in both in both ocean and in their freshwater environment. The population became extirpated in 2009; however smolts from a captive breeding program (which began in 2002) continue to be introduced and a small number of adults have been returning to the lake. The rank will remain Extirpated until it is confirmed that offspring have succeeded in returning to the lake to spawn again. | + + + +F = 20,000-200,000 square km | + + +>20,000 | + + +Sakinaw Sockeye Salmon are anadromous; returning from the Pacific Ocean to spawn within a single lake, Sakinaw Lake, on the Sechelt Peninsula in the Straight of Georgia, BC. The extent of occurrence exceeds 20,000 km2 (COSEWIC 2016l). | + + +A = 1 | + + +4 | + + +A = 1-4 | + + +Sakinaw Sockeye have been seen spawning on as many as 5 beaches in Sakinaw Lake. However, recent spawning has been confined to only one beach, Shanon?s Beach, in recent years. Assuming one spawning beach exists in one COSEWIC 2km x 2km grid, the Index Area of Occupancy was historically 20 km2 while it is currently 4 km2 (COSEWIC 2016l). | + + ++ + + + | A = 1 - 5 | + + +Sawkinaw Lake | + + +A = None (zero) | + + ++ + + | + + + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + | B = 50 - 250 individuals | + + +There are less than 250 returning, wild-bred adults (COSEWIC 2016l). From COSEWIC (2016l): "From 1947 to 1987, the estimated number of maturing adults entering Sakinaw Lake averaged about 4,500 individuals (range 750 to 16,000) with no declining trend. From 1987 to 2005, numbers declined dramatically and from 2006 to 2009 there were zero or one adult Sockeye counted entering the lake and the population became extirpated in the wild. A captive-breeding program began in 2002 and it has preserved the population. Adult Sockeye Salmon from the hatchery releases began returning to Sakinaw Lake in 2010, with a total of 29 spawners counted at the fishway. Between 2011 and 2014, an annual average of 351 (range 114 to 555) captively bred adult fish returned to the lake. Some of these fish were observed spawning on historical beaches. It is too early to determine if their offspring have succeeded in returning to the lake to spawn again." |
+
+
+
+
+
+A = Very high | + + +The Sakinaw Sockeye population is threatened by mortalilty in the marine environment and degredation of freshwater habitat; Sockeye continue to be killed in fisheries which, given their low numbers, threatens the viability of the population. A catastrophic event at the captive breeding hatchery would likely render the population extinct (COSEWIC 2016l). | + + + +A = Decline of >90% | + + +This population became exitrpated in the wild in 2009; wild adult returns declined by 100% over the past 3 generations (COSEWIC 2016i). | + + +Rank Factor not assessed | + ++ + + + | AB=Highly to moderately vulnerable. | + +From COSEWIC 2016l: "Sockeye Salmon have a high fecundity (2,000 - 5,200) and small egg size (5.3-6.6 mm in diameter) relative to other salmon species of the same size (Burgner 1991). Adult size and fecundity in the Sakinaw Lake population is at the lower end of the range for Sockeye Salmon (see Murray and Wood 2002, Gustafson et al. 1997). Sakinaw Sockeye may have evolved the size and return timing in response to Sakinaw Lake?s unique location and hydrology with short migration and access only during specific water flow conditions." | + + +A=Very narrow. Specialist or community with key requirements scarce. | + +Sakinaw Sockeye are anadromous, returning from the sea to a single lake to spawn. They may have evolved the size and return timing in response to the lake's unique location and hydrology with short migration and access only during specific water flow conditions. Within the lake, they rely on incubation habitat, typically along the shoreline in areas of upwelling water near alluvial fans (COSEWIC 2016l). | + + ++ + + + | + + + | + + + + | + + | + + + + | Gelling, L. | + +June 27, 2018 | + + +
| + AFCHA03021 + | ++ Prosopium coulterii pop. 1 + | + ++ + | Pygmy Whitefish - Southwestern Yukon Beringian Populations | + ++ + + + | S2S3 | + +May 15, 2019 | + + +May 15, 2019 | + +Pygmy Whitefish, Southwestern Yukon Beringian population, occurs in Yukon Territory and in northwestern BC. In BC they are known from only three lakes - Atlin, Tagish and Bennett. It is possible that other locations occur, as there has been little search effort. The greatest potential threat to this population includes fluctuating water levels that can strand eggs and restrict foraging habitat. | + + + +E = 5,000-20,000 square km | + + +5000 | + + +Pygmy Whitefish, Southwestern Yukon Beringian populations are found within Atlin Lake, Tagish Lake (COSEWIC 2016m), Bennett Lake and Liard River (Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy ? Knowledge Management ND; accessed April 15, 2019) in northwestern BC. All lakes cross into the Yukon. The estimated range in BC is about 5,000 km2. | + + +EF = 26-500 | + + +193 | + + ++ + + | Based on BC Trim maps, the area of Atlin Lake is 564 km2, Tagish Lake is 196km and Bennett Lake is 13km2. Thus, the total continuous area is aproximately 773 km2 (193 2x2 km grid cells). | + + ++ + + + | AB = 1 - 20 | + + +Pygmy Whitefish is known from 4 waterbodies in BC. Search effort has been very low (COSEWIC 2016m), so it is possible that there are more occurrences. | + + +Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + | + + + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + | U = Unknown | + + ++ + + + + + | U = Unknown | + + +Potential threats include fluctuating water levels, which may leave eggs stranded and/or restrict foraging habitat (COSEWIC 2016m) | + + + +U = Unknown | + + ++ + + | U = Unknown | + ++ + + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + ++ + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + ++ + + | + + + + | + + + | + + + + | + + | + + + + | Gelling, L. | + +April 30, 2019 | + + +
| + AFCHA03023 + | ++ Prosopium coulterii pop. 3 + | + ++ + | Pygmy Whitefish - Pacific Populations | + ++ + + + | S4 | + +May 15, 2019 | + + +May 15, 2019 | + +Pygmy Whitefish, Pacific population, has a large range and number of occurrences in BC, within many lakes and rivers. Potential threats to this population include habitat degredation and introduction of non-native fish. | + + + +G = 200,000-2,500,000 square km | + + ++ + + | "The Pacific DU encompasses about ~34% of the lakes known to contain Pygmy Whitefish which are found in lakes within the Columbia, Fraser, and Skeena River drainages in British Columbia" (COSEWIC 2016m). The range extent is approximately 206,839 km2 (COSEWIC 2016m). | + + +F = 126-500 | + + +273 | + + ++ + + | Based on confirmed observations, within continuous habitat, the index area of occupancy is 1,092km2 (273 2x2km grid cells) (COSEWIC 2016m). | + + ++ + + + | D = 81 - 300 | + + +This estimate is based upon records within COSEWIC 2016m and Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy ? Knowledge Management ND (accessed April 15, 2019). ?The small size of the Pygmy Whitefish and the great depths that it generally inhabits makes its capture using conventional fishing methods difficult. Consequently, most reports documenting Pygmy Whitefish are a product of incidental capture resulting in presence/absence data only.? (COSEWIC 2016m). | + + +Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + | + + + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + | U = Unknown | + + ++ + + + + + | U = Unknown | + + +Potential threats include habitat degradation associated with forestry, hydroelectric activity, mining, agriculture and urbanization. Stocking non-native predatroy fish may also impact Pygmy Whitefish (COSEWIC 2016m). | + + + +U = Unknown | + + ++ + + | U = Unknown | + ++ + + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + ++ + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + ++ + + | + + + + | + + + | + + + + | + + | + + + + | Gelling, L. | + +May 15, 2019 | + + +
| + AFCPA04010 + | ++ Pungitius pungitius + | + ++ + | Ninespine Stickleback | + ++ + + + | SU | + +February 28, 2014 | + + +March 30, 2018 | + +From Klinkenberg (ND, Efauna): "The ninespine stickleback may not breed in B.C. Only four specimens are known. Three came from the Petitot River just west of the Alberta border and one came from the Ft. Nelson River just downstream from old Ft. Nelson. The Petitot River specimens probably drifted downstream from Bistcho Lake in Alberta. Although no breeding fish were taken in the Petitot, the region close to the Alberta border has only been collected once. The Ft. Nelson fish is more puzzling. It was taken hundreds of kilometers from any known self-sustaining population. If it was a stray from the nearest known source (Bistcho Lake) it had to swim down the Petitot River to the Liard River and then upstream against the current to the Ft. Nelson area. A formidable journey against a strong current! The simplest explanation is that there is some unknown, but nearby, source. If so, there maybe a self-sustaining B.C. population. <b>Source</b>: Information provided by Don McPhail for E-Fauna BC." | + + + +A = <100 square km | + + ++ + + | Known from one site on the Fort Nelson River near Old Fort Nelson. | + + ++ + + | + + + | + + + | + + + | + + + + | A = 1 - 5 | + + +Known from only one site; possibly more widespread. However evidence of a self-sustaining population has not been established (McPhail 2007). | + + +Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + | + + + + | A = None | + + ++ + + | FH = 10,000 to >1,000,000 individuals | + + +Unknown, but probably locally abundant | + + + + + +Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + + | U = Unknown | + + +No data | + + +Rank Factor not assessed | + ++ + + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + ++ + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + ++ + + | + + + + | + + + | Further surveys needed to delineate B.C. distribution | + + + ++ + | + + + + | Cannings, S.G. | + +March 02, 1992 | + + +
| + AFCJB37020 + | ++ Rhinichthys cataractae + | + ++ + | Longnose Dace | + ++ + + + | S5 | + +January 31, 1992 | + + +May 15, 2019 | + ++ + + + | G = 200,000-2,500,000 square km | + + ++ + + | McPhail 2007 | + + ++ + + | + + + | + + + | + + + | + + + + | E = > 300 | + + ++ + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + | + + + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + + + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + ++ + + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + ++ + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + ++ + + | + + + + | + + + | + + + + | + + | + + + + | + + | + + + |
| + AFCJB37110 + | ++ Rhinichthys cataractae - Chehalis lineage + | + +Rhinichthys sp. 4 | + +Nooksack Dace | + ++ + + + | S1 | + +January 31, 1992 | + + +May 15, 2019 | + +Restricted distribution in province; declining population threatened by habitat loss and degradation. | + + + +A = <100 square km | + + ++ + + | Limited to three adjacent streams (Bertrand, Pepin and Fishtrap creeks) all tributaries of the Nooksack River in Washington State. | + + +AC = 1-5 | + + ++ + + | A = 1-4 | + + +Nooksack dace were found in 30 of the 74 reaches sampled in the three streams, about 0.12 km2 of habitat (Pearson 2004). | + + ++ + + + | A = 1 - 5 | + + +Known from three small creeks. | + + +A = None (zero) | + + ++ + + | All are seriously impacted by habitat degradation (Pearson 2004). | + + + +A = None | + + +Most of the remaining fish reside in the lower reaches of Bertrand Creek surrounded by privately owned land (Pearson 2004). The species is listed under the Canadian Species at Risk Act (Schedule 1) as Endangered; a recovery team, as described under this legislation, has been established to develop and implement a recovery strategy. | + + +DE = 1,000 - 10,000 individuals | + + +Over 1300 fish were captured in Bertrand Creek with a low recapture rate; Bertrand Creek contains about 70% of the Canadian population of Nooksack dace (Pearson 2004). | + + + + + +AB = Very high - high | + + +The most serious threat across the range is a lack of sufficient in-stream flows (habitat dewatering); other serious threats are habitat destruction from drainage activities, sediment deposition, the loss of riffles to beaver ponds, and habitat fragmentation; currently, the presence of non-native predators is a lower concern (Pearson 2004). | + + + +D = Decline of 50-70% | + + +They are now found in significant numbers only in a small section in the lower reaches of Bertrand Creek (Pearson 2004). Previously, McPhail (1997) had reported that there appeared to be healthy populations in all three streams, although they were declining (based on their absence from reaches and tributaries where they had historically been found). | + + +BC = Decline of 70-90% | + +Inferred from contraction of range (McPhail 1997; Pearson 2004) and development occurring within the three watersheds. | + + + +BC=Moderately vulnerable to not intrinsically vulnerable. | + +Has shown the ability to take advantage of nearby newly created habitat, but appears to be generally sedentary (Pearson 2004). | + + +B=Narrow. Specialist or community with key requirements common. | + +Highly adapted to well oxygenated riffle habitat. The total length of riffle habitat in a reach was the most significant predictor or Nooksack dace presence (Pearson 2004). | + + ++ + + + | Pearson (2004) identified several information gaps including: extent, severity and impact of hypoxia; tolerances to water quality impacts; minimum flow requirements; frequency and duration of future drought periods under climate warming; critical levels of sedimentation in riffles; change in predation rates over a range of conditions and its effects on habitat use and fitness; minimum viable population numbers; migration and movement. | + + +Pearson (2004) identified several data needs, including: influence of drought conditions on habitat use; relative influence of factors driving base flow reductions; extent of unauthorized tributary and ditch dredging; amount of past habitat loss and beaver activity; assessment of riffle compaction and sedimentation; distribution and densities of introduced predators; barriers to movement; extent of contamination (Pearson 2004). | + + + +Pearson (2004) recommended reducing and preventing water withdrawals and wetland loss; increasing the amount of permeable area to maintain adequate baseflows; and establishing protected areas where habitat and water quality can be maintained to provide sources for future reintroductions . Long term agreements with landowners and stewardship groups are needed. | + +Prevent further habitat loss; minimize probability of catastrophic events and chronic water quality degradation; develop management strategy/policy for beaver dams in watersheds where Salish sucker co-occur (Pearson 2004). | + + + +Ptolemy, J. | + +February 28, 2005 | + + +
| + AFCJB37050 + | ++ Rhinichthys osculus + | + ++ + | Speckled Dace | + ++ + + + | S3? | + +May 15, 2019 | + + +May 15, 2019 | + +Speckled Dace are restricted to the Kettle-Granby river system in the extreme south central portion of B.C. which is its northern limit. Threats include reduction in habitat size and quality as a result of water extraction and sedimentation from forestry activity, low flow conditions due to climate change and the presence of non-native fish. | + + + +D = 1,000-5,000 square km | + + +2,809 | + + +Speckled Dace is restricted to the Kettle-Granby river system (Columbia drainage) in the extreme south central portion of B.C. which is their northern limit (COSEWIC 2006x, 2016k, McPhail 2007). The extent of occurrence, using a minimum convex polygon around all records in B.C., is calculated to be 2,809 square kilometeres (COSEWIC 2016k). Scattered populations are found in about 275 km of stream length, the linear distance of occupancy (COSEWIC 2016k). | + + +EF = 26-500 | + + +160-528 | + + ++ + + | From COSEWIC (2016k): Because it is likely that there is habitat within the Kettle River system that is unfavourable to Speckled Dace, and also that the species occurs at sites not sampled within its range, the most appropriate estimate of Index area of Occupancy (IAO) is likely between the discrete (40 2x2 km grid cells) and continuous (132 2x2 km grid cells) estimates. | + + ++ + + + | B = 6 - 20 | + + ++ + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + | + + + + | A = None | + + +Known speckled dace habitat receives general protection under federal legislation, such as the fish habitat section of the Federal Fisheries Act and habitat related provisions of various provincial statutes designed to protect the environment, water quality and fish (COSEWIC 2006x). | + + +GH = 100,000 to >1,000,000 individuals | + + +Batty (2010) estimated that the number of mature individuals in Canada was 940,000 (90% confidence interval: 412,000 ? 1,955,000), which is at least 40 times greater than previous estimates (COSEWIC 2016k). | + + + + + +BC = High - medium | + + +2018: A threats assessment was completed in 2015, resulting in a score of High-Medium. COSEWIC (2016k) states, "The main threats to Speckled Dace are a reduction in habitat size and quality as a result of water extraction and sedimentation from forestry activity. Climate change may exacerbate low flow conditions during periods of peak water demand. Several non-native fish (e.g., Smallmouth Bass, Micropterus dolomieu; Northern Pike, Esox lucius; Walleye, Sander vitreus) could pose competitive or predatory threats if they were to spread into the Kettle River system above Cascade Falls." 2010:The Kettle River is a flow-sensitive system that appears to be experiencing increasing frequency of drought conditions. Reduced water flow and projected increasing water demands is a a threat to this species (COSEWIC 2006x). Cumulative habitat degradation is also a threat, including water quality issues related to industrial activity (forestry related or the coal slag piles stored above Grand Forks on the Granby River), urbanization (sewage) and agricultural run-off, i.e., irrigation/water diversion in terms of changing run-off paterns and demand in relation to climate change leading to extended low-flow periods (COSEWIC 2006x). Its restricted distribution makes it vulnerable to any catastrophic event affecting a single drainage system (COSEWIC 2006x, McPhail 2007). However, an event that would eliminate speckled dace from the entire upper river is very unlikely McPhail 2007). Introduction of exotic fish may also be a threat (Haas 1998). The run-of-river hydroelectric generation project at Cascade Falls (downstream of Grand Forks) that was originally proposed in 1999 was modified in 2003. It is believed that impacts to speckled dace habitat under this new proposal will not be significant, but would be monitored should the project proceed (COSEWIC 2006x). |
+
+
+
+G = Relatively Stable (<=10% change) | + + +There is the possibility of decline in the area of occupancy and total population, inferred from increasing frequency and severity of summer drought conditions which may reduce adult habitat (COSEWIC 2006x). However, the number of populations appears to be stable and the known number of locations (Kettle, West Kettle and Granby rivers) are stable (COSEWIC 2006x). "Surveys from 1978 to 1980 indicated populations were stable over that short period." (Peden and Hughes 1981). Peden and Hughes (1984) speculated that there may be fluctuations in survival of young-of-the-year fish as a consequence of variability in spring flooding, but also noted that Speckled Dace evolved within the natural flood regime of the river and may have developed adaptations to cope with natural patterns of disturbance." (COSEWIC 2016k). | + + +U = Unknown | + +No long-term studies have been conducted to determine population trends (COSEWIC 2016k). | + + + +B=Moderately vulnerable | + +"Females considered to be in spawning condition contained relatively few large eggs (usually <500) around 1.5 mm in diameter (Peden and Hughes 1981). The number of large eggs in fall-caught females ranged from about 450 to 2,000, suggesting a single ovarian cycle per year." (COSEWIC 2016k) | + + +C=Moderate. Generalist or community with some key requirements scarce. | + +Environmental cues are thought to trigger spawning such as increased photoperiod and increased water temperatures (Kaya 1991 in McPhail 2007). Appropriate spawning sites are required within a stream. In Arizona, spawning peaks were associated with seasonal rains and flooding (John 1963 in McPhail 2007). | + + +As most of the Kettle River population is isolated from the rest of the Columbia drainage system at Cascade Falls, there is no possibility of gene flow into the Kettle River above the barrier from downstream populations. In the unlikely event a catastrophe did occur, most of the Kettle River could not be repopulated by natural immigration (McPhail 2007; COSEWIC 2016k). | + + + ++ + + | + + + + | + + | + + + + | L. Gelling (2018), L. Westereng (2009) and S.G. Cannings (1992) | + +May 15, 2019 | + + +
| + AFCJB37120 + | ++ Rhinichthys umatilla + | + ++ + | Umatilla Dace | + ++ + + + | S2 | + +January 31, 1992 | + + +March 15, 2019 | + +Restricted to a number of localities in only five rivers; one population has declined or disappeared. | + + + +AB = <100-250 square km | + + ++ + + | Restricted to Similkameen (including Otter Creek) and Lower Columbia, Kootenay, and Slocan rivers, and the Kettle River below Cascade Falls. Also observed in Mission Creek (Wilhelmson 2003). | + + +U = Unknown | + + ++ + + | U = Unknown | + + ++ + + | + + + + | B = 6 - 20 | + + +18 known sites (Wilhelmson 2003). | + + +U = Unknown | + + ++ + + | The Columbia River population is thought to support a viable population, however, limitations in sampling gear make it difficult to ascertain (Wilhelmson 2003). | + + + +A = None | + + +No known areas are protected. | + + +U = Unknown | + + +Low population densities that are patchily distributed (Wilhelmson 2003). Larger populations are most likely present in the Columbia River, however the total population is severely fragmented with little or no exchange (Wilhelmson 2003). | + + + + + +Unknown | + + +Major threats to the population include hydroelectric dams, low water temperatures, and dykes (Wilhelmson 2003). | + + + +F = Decline of 10-30% | + + +Otter Creek population has declined or disappeared completely in recent years. This species remains rare and establishing an overall trend in the population is difficult with current data available (Wilhelmson 2003). | + + +U = Unknown | + +This species remains rare and establishing an overall long-term trend in the population is difficult with current data available (Wilhelmson 2003). | + + + +B=Moderately vulnerable | + +Their need for a particular water regime may limit their ability to adapt should there be changes to water velocity (Wilhelmson 2003). | + + +B=Narrow. Specialist or community with key requirements common. | + +This species shows preference for particular water flow regimes, water temperatures and siltation levels (Hughes and Peden 1988). Adults prefer water velocities > 0.5m/s, shallow depths, and shelter in gravel/cobble substrates at the bottom; young of the year (YOY) prefer nearshore habitats in winter/spring, small cobbles, sand or silt; juvenile habitats are in between adults and YOY (Wilhelmson 2003). | + + ++ + + + | + + + | Otter Creek should be surveyed to assess the status of this species there. If possible, deeper water habitats of the Columbia system should be searched to determine the status of adult dace. | + + + +Exemplary habitat such as that in the Similkameen River at Keremeos should be protected. | + +Otter Creek should be managed with the health of this species as a primary concern. | + + + +Porto, L.M. and S.G. Cannings | + +February 24, 2005 | + + +
| + AFCHA05020 + | ++ Salvelinus confluentus + | + ++ + | Bull Trout | + ++ + + + | S3S4 | + +January 02, 2012 | + + +April 26, 2018 | + +Widespread, however there is sensitivity to access development and habitat degradation, small individual populations sizes and long term population declines that appear to have stabalized. | + + + +G = 200,000-2,500,000 square km | + + ++ + + | Occurs widely throughout BC, with the exception of Vancouver Island, Queen Charlotte Islands/Haida Gwaii and other coastal areas, and the western tributaries of the Columbia (including the Similkameen, Okanagan and Kettle systems) (McPhail and Carveth 1993). | + + +U = Unknown | + + ++ + + | U = Unknown | + + +The area of occupancy for bull trout populations is unknown. | + + ++ + + + | E = > 300 | + + +A recent draft analysis of bull trout data notes that ~1000 tributary watersheds in BC contain bull trout (John Hagen, unpublished data 2011). This will include all tributaries--there may be fewer EOs based on the EO specifications. Interior bull trout are present in 88 different water bodies in Region 3 Thompson Nicola, in 341 different water bodies in Region 4 Kootenay, in 251 different water bodies in Region 7 Peace, and in 15 different water bodies in Region 8 Okanagan (data from FISS 2011). Coastal bull trout are found in 47 different water bodies in Region 2 Lower Mainland (FISS 2011). |
+
+
+U = Unknown | + + ++ + + | + + + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + + +The number of protected occurrences is unknown. Bull trout habitat is protected by the federal Fisheries Act. | + + +FG = 10,000 - 1,000,000 individuals | + + +The total population of bull trout is unknown. Based on expert opinion, 5,000-10,000 is likely the population of the coastal bull trout (Hagen and Decker 2011). Given the number of waterbodies included in the province, the number of mature fish undoubtedly ranges from tens to 100s of thousands. | + + + + + +B = High | + + +Susceptible to over-harvest. Hybridization with introduced/stocked brook trout, competition from introduced trout and char species. Creation of migration barriers e.g. hydroelectric development, road building. Habitat degradation (including increased stream temperature or decreased water quality, changes in stream hydrology, sedimentation, and impacts to groundwater supply) due to forest harvesting practices, oil and gas exploration, grazing, mining, and road development. | + + + +G = Relatively Stable (<=10% change) | + + +A recent province-wide analysis of Bull Trout trend data, based on very few locations, noted an increase in most cases, where a previously depressed population was responding positively to more restrictive angling regulations (John Hagen, unpublished data 2011). Negative trends are observed in the Williston Reservoir (John Hagen, unpublished data 2011). There also were negative trends on the Squamish River where a toxic CN spill resulted in a significant decline (Hagen and Decker 2011) which is expected to level out soon and start rebuilding (Greg Wilson, Surrey MFLNRO, pers. comm. 2011). Pollard and Down (2001; reported in Hammond 2004) reported most bull trout populations to be stable with a few declining. Expert opinion for this group suggests that populations vary from declining to increasing -overall stable. |
+
+
+F = Decline of 10-30% | + +Due to extensive habitat impacts in the lower mainland and forestry impacts along the coast, it is likely that coastal bull trout populations have declined over the long-term. Declines probably in the range of 10-30%. Due to numerous dams along the Columbia River and the creation of the Peace Williston Reservoir, as well as the effects of forestry, mining and oil and gas development, it is likely that the interior population of bull trout has declined over the long-term. Overall, long-term trend is probably declining but now stable. |
+
+
+
+B=Moderately vulnerable | + +Bull trout mature late in life. However, they do exhibit diversity in this maturation and growth rate according to the habita that they are in (McClaren 1993). | + + +C=Moderate. Generalist or community with some key requirements scarce. | + +They are sensitive to disturbance and require relatively pristine habitats. However, they do exhibit diversity in habitat use and migration movements (McClaren 1993). | + + +Currently listed as threatened under US Endangered Species Act. Populations across species range in decline. Mitochondrial DNA research indicates the presence of 2 major evolutionary lineages - 'coastal' and 'interior' (Taylor et al. 1999). Most genetic variation occurs among populations and among geographic regions (Taylor et al. 1999); maintenance of genetic diversity requires conservation of as many populations as possible across species distribution and range; they do not appear to act as metapopulations (Taylor et al. 2001). Conservation of bull trout in B.C. critical to survival on a global level; B.C. harbours the majority of the remaining healthy bull trout populations. | + + + ++ + + | Monitoring population trends, genetic dynamics, basic life history. Research into current forest harvesting practices, agricultural practices, habitat-sensitive industrial development and mitigation techniques, conservation management techniques, regulation changes. Identification of specific risks. | + + + +Appropriate angling management and enforcement. Removal of reproductive populations of brook trout where feasible. Curtail movement of bull trout, other char or trout to waters already inhabited by native populations. | + +Information and education. Compliance with angling and habitat protection regulations. Acceptance of compatible agricultural practices and attention to access development issues. Rehabilitation and restoration of degraded habitat, blocked migration routes, and water flow, temperature and quality. | + + + +Woodruff, P. (edits by S. Pollard). | + +October 31, 2011 | + + +
| + AFCHA05124 + | ++ Salvelinus confluentus pop. 12 + | + ++ + | Bull Trout - Upper Yukon Watershed Populations | + ++ + + + | SU | + +April 24, 2018 | + + +April 24, 2018 | + +There isn't any known information on threats, trends, population or even range (COSEWIC 2012). | + + + +U = Unknown | + + ++ + + | Bull trout are believed to be found in the Upper Yukon River, but their complete distribution is unknown (COSEWIC 2012). | + + +U = Unknown | + + ++ + + | + + + | Bull trout are believed to be found in the Upper Yukon River (COSEWIC 2012). | + + ++ + + + | U = Unknown | + + +Bull trout are believed to be found in the Upper Yukon River, but the total number of occurrences is unknown (COSEWIC 2012). Likely between 1-5. | + + +U = Unknown | + + ++ + + | + + + + | U = Unknown | + + +Approximately 14% of bull trout habitat in BC is protected; angling regulations are in place (COSEWIC 2012). | + + +U = Unknown | + + +Information on population sizes of bull trout in the Upper Yukon River is not available (COSEWIC 2012). | + + + + + +U = Unknown | + + +There is not a lot of population and trend information available for the many different bull trout populations and designatable units found throughout BC (COSEWIC 2012; Hagen and Decker 2011).Populations of bull trout also persist in relatively pristine and/or inaccessible areas throughout the province (COSEWIC 2012; Hagen and Decker 2011). The main threats to this population include pollution, forest loss and resultant habitat degradation, and the effects of climate change (WWF 2015), although there is no information on the trends of this population and the scope of the potential threats. | + + + +U = Unknown | + + +Information on trends of bull trout in the Upper Yukon River is not available (COSEWIC 2012). | + + +U = Unknown | + +Information on trends of bull trout in the Upper Yukon River is not available (COSEWIC 2012). | + + + +B=Moderately vulnerable | + +This is a slow-growing and late-maturing species, with a generation time of approximately 7 years (COSEWIC 2012). | + + +B=Narrow. Specialist or community with key requirements common. | + +Bull trout thrive in cold (less than 15 degrees Celsius), pristine water, and requires long, unimpeded migratory routes between spawning and adult habitat (COSEWIC 2012; McPhail 2007). | + + +COSEWIC (2012) assessed this population as data deficient. | + + + ++ + + | Population numbers, trends and locations. | + + + +It is unknown whether this population migrates back and forth over the Yukon border; information on threats in the Yukon that might impact BC populations are needed. | + ++ + + + | P. Woodruff and L. Ramsay | + +April 24, 2018 | + + +
| + AFCHA0502N + | ++ Salvelinus confluentus pop. 26 + | + ++ + | Bull Trout - Pacific Populations | + ++ + + + | S3S4 | + +April 24, 2018 | + + +April 24, 2018 | + +This population unit covers a broad area with a relatively stable population, however threats are high and there are a number of unknowns around population totals and number of occurrences. | + + + +F = 20,000-200,000 square km | + + ++ + + | Greater than 20,000 square km (COSEWIC 2012). | + + +GH = 501-12,500 | + + ++ + + | + + + | Greater than 2,000 square km (COSEWIC 2012). | + + ++ + + + | D = 81 - 300 | + + +Greater than 78 locations (COSEWIC 2012). | + + +U = Unknown | + + ++ + + | There are stable, increasing and decreasing popualtions across this DU; there is no evidence of declines in mature individuals or distribution, and therefore at least some locations must show good viability and ecological integrity (COSEWIC 2012). | + + + +U = Unknown | + + +Approximately 14% of bull trout habitat in BC is protected; angling regulations are in place (COSEWIC 2012). | + + +FG = 10,000 - 1,000,000 individuals | + + +Much greater than 39,000 individuals (COSEWIC 2012). | + + + + + +B = High | + + +Generation time is approximately 7 years, therefore 21 years was the timeframes used for scoring severity and timing (COSEWIC 2012).There is not a lot of population and trend information available for the many different bull trout populations and designatable units found throughout BC (COSEWIC 2012; Hagen and Decker 2011). Many of the populations studied show stable or increasing trends, however certain regions show overall declines (Hagen and Decker 2011).This DU is located only in BC, with more than 78 subpopulations and more than 39,000 mature individuals(COSEWIC 2012). There has been no evidence of decline in the number of mature individuals in this DU (COSEWIC 2012). Although there are many threats to bull trout, especially due to its habitat requirements, many of these are localized within each region (COSEWIC 2012; Hagen and Decker 2011). Populations of bull trout also persist in relatively pristine and/or inaccessible areas throughout the province (COSEWIC 2012; Hagen and Decker 2011). The main threats are from habitat degradation and fragmentation from forestry, mining, oil and gas exploration/development, and the associated road building; introduced brook and lake trout, which can displace and/or hybridize with native bull trout; overexploitation (through illegal harvest and incidental by-catch, as well as intense angling efforts; however, there are adaptive management plans and angling regulations in place in many regions as well); increased water withdrawals; and increasing temperatures, due to climate change or change in forest cover (COSEWIC 2012; Hagen and Decker 2011). | + + + +G = Relatively Stable (<=10% change) | + + +Currently, the populations in this DU show increasing, stable and decreasing populations; there does not appear to be any decrease in the total number of mature individuals (COSEWIC 2012). | + + +U = Unknown | + +There have been no consistent trends observed for the Pacific population (COSEWIC 2012). | + + + +B=Moderately vulnerable | + +Generation time for bull trout is approximately 7 years; it is a slow-growing and late-maturing species (COSEWIC 2012). | + + +B=Narrow. Specialist or community with key requirements common. | + +Bull trout require cold (less than 15 degrees Celsius), pristine waters and long, unimpeded migratory pathways between spawning and adult habitat (COSEWIC 2012; McPhail 2007). | + + +COSEWIC (2012) assessed the Pacific populations as not at risk. There is no evidence of declines in distribution or abundance of mature adults (COSEWIC 2012). | + + + ++ + + | + + + + | + + | + + + + | P. Woodruff | + +April 24, 2018 | + + +
| + AFCHA0502Q + | ++ Salvelinus confluentus pop. 28 + | + +Salvelinus confluentus pop. 6 | + +Bull Trout - South Coast Population | + ++ + + + | S2S3 | + +April 26, 2018 | + + +April 26, 2018 | + +This species is highly sensitive to increasing temperatures as it is cold-dependent. While declines have been observed in some watersheds, others have witnessed recent increases associated with more restrictive angling regulations. Populations considered to be at low-risk to potentially at-risk depending on the watershed. Overall, populations are probably stable at present but significant uncertainty and threats persist associated with climate change, altered flow regimes and other identified threats in this highly developed region of BC. | + + + +F = 20,000-200,000 square km | + + +32053 | + + +COSEWIC (2012) states that the total South Coast British Columbia DU is found in 32,053 square km. | + + +G = 501-2,500 | + + ++ + + | U = Unknown | + + +COSEWIC (2012) lists the total South Coast British Columbia DU as being in greater than 2000 square km of 2x2 grid value. | + + ++ + + + | B = 6 - 20 | + + +COSEWIC (2012) lists the number of BC populations is apporximately 5-10. | + + +AB = 0 - 3 | + + ++ + + | The Squamish populations is at risk in this DU (COSEWIC 2012). The Skagit population was originally classified as at low risk in COSEWIC (2012); however, there have been recent reports of Eastern Brook Trout in the system. | + + + +Rank Factor not assessed | + + +The number of protected occurrences is unknown. Bull trout habitat is protected by the federal Fisheries Act. | + + +DE = 1,000 - 10,000 individuals | + + +Bull trout estimates for the South Coast British Columbia DU include 1750 mature individuals for Skagit, and approximately 575 mature individuals for Squamish, for a total of over 2325 fish (range of known populations: 1250-3500; COSEWIC 2012). | + + + + + +B = High | + + +From 2017-12-19 TC: Generation time is approximately 7 years, therefore 21 years was the timeframes used for scoring severity and timing (COSEWIC 2012). There is not a lot of population and trend information available for the many different bull trout populations and designatable units found throughout BC (COSEWIC 2012; Hagen and Decker 2011). Many of the populations studied show stable or increasing trends, however certain regions, such as the heavily developed Lower Fraser, show overall declines (Hagen and Decker 2011). There has been no evidence of decline in numner of mature individuals (COSEWIC 2012). This DU is located entirely within BC, in 5 watersheds: Lillooet, Lower Fraser, Lower Fraser Canyon, Skagit and Squamish. The majority (1750 out of more than 2325 individuals) of this DU is found in the Skagit system, with approximately 575 individuals found in the Squamish system and lower numbers in the other 3 locations. The main threats are from habitat degradation and fragmentation from forestry and the associated road building; introduced brook trout, which can displace and/or hybridize with native bull trout; overexploitation (through illegal harvest and incidental by-catch, as well as intense angling efforts; however, there are adaptive management plans and angling regulations in place in many regions as well); and increasing temperatures, due to climate change or change in forest cover (COSEWIC 2012; Hagen and Decker 2011). The anadromous life history form is unique to these populations. Bull trout are voracious piscivores, and can be very vulnerable to angling effort (Hammond 2004). Bull trout are very sensitive to forestry impacts, as the loss of riparian vegetation and subsequent loss of shading can lead to temperature increases in the streams (McPhail and Baxter 1996; Hammond 2004). Forestry impacts can also lead to an increase of sedimentation, which affects the incubation and rearing habitat (Hammond 2004). Any increase of temperature due to climate change will also have negative impacts on this cold-water adapted species (McPhail 2007). Overall threat impact was assessed as medium-high given uncertainties of climate change for this temperature sensitive species, and fairly limited range all of which occurs in a highly developed region with ongoing developmental pressures. |
+
+
+
+FH = Decline of <30% to increase of 25% | + + +There is no information for three of the river systems, the Lillooet, lower Fraser and Lower Fraser Canyon; the Skagit was listed as low risk and an increasing population, and the Squamish was listed as at risk with declines by COSEWIC (2012). Thus the trend varies across the different watersheds, from stable or increasing, to decreasing and unknown (COSEWIC 2012). | + + +U = Unknown | + +. | + + + +B=Moderately vulnerable | + +Bull trout are slow-growing and late-maturing, with a generation time of approximately 7 years (COSEWIC 2012). Bull trout fecundities range from less than 1,000 (stream-resident populations) to up to 9,000 (in anadromous populations; McPhail 2007). |
+
+
+BC=Narrow to moderate. | + +Bull trout have a variety of life history patterns (i.e, stream-resident, fluvial, adfluvial and anadromous); however, they are a cold-water species are generally only found in waters less than 15oC (McPhail 2007). | + + ++ + + + | + + + | + + + + | + + | + + + + | Patricia Woodruff and L. Ramsay | + +March 23, 2018 | + + +
| + AFCHA05042 + | ++ Salvelinus malma - northern lineage + | + +Salvelinus malma pop. 2 | + +Dolly Varden - Northern Lineage | + ++ + + + | S4S5 | + +January 02, 2012 | + + +January 02, 2012 | + +This is a new entity that will have a rank added January 2012 when the ranks are published for the year. | + + + +G = 200,000-2,500,000 square km | + + ++ + + | Northern Dolly Varden are found in the Tulsequah River in the Taku River system; the Iskut, Tahltan, and Chutine rivers in the Stikine River system; the Zolzap River in the Nass River system; Ogden Channel and Noyes Sound in the central coast of BC; Esctall River and Ayton Creek in the Skeena River system; Brent Creek, Aero River, Feather Creek, Honna River, Three Mile Creek, Ian and Ain rivers in Haida Gwaii; Kumealon Creek, Noosneck River, Dallery Creek and Ocean Falls in midcoast BC; Upper Deserted River in south coast BC; and O'Connell Lake, Claninick River, Keogh River, Misty Lake, Zeballos River, Thelwood Creek, Phillips River and Cowichan Lake on Vancouver Island (Taylor et al. 2001). | + + +U = Unknown | + + ++ + + | U = Unknown | + + +The area of occupancy for northern Dolly Varden is unknown. | + + ++ + + + | E = > 300 | + + +The northern population of Dolly Varden are found in 168 different water bodies in Region 5 Cariboo and in 752 different water bodies in Region 6 Skeena (data from FISS 2011). | + + +EF = 41 to >125 | + + ++ + + | The actual number of occurrences with good viability or ecological integrity is unknown; however, McPhail (2007) states that " in most of coastal British Columbia, Dolly Varden are abundant and not heavily exploited". Therefore it is likely that a good number of water bodies in which the northern population of Dolly Varden is present have good viability or ecological integrity. | + + + +Rank Factor not assessed | + + +The number of occurrences in protected areas are unknown, although it is likely that Dolly Varden are present in provincial parks and other protected sites, due to the large number of water bodies in which it is found. | + + +GH = 100,000 to >1,000,000 individuals | + + +If there were 400 spawners in each system (i.e., approximate peak spawner count reported in Lough et al. 2003), there could be approximately 368,000 spawners in the northern population, but the actual population size, including juvenile estimates, is unknown. Using the spawning estimate of 2000 fish provided by Tredger (1979), there could be up to 2 million spawning fish. | + + + + + +CD = Medium - low | + + +Overfishing has been a concern, although regulations have been switched in some areas to catch and release, which seems to be assisting in population recovery (Michalski 2006). Dolly Varden prefer cooler waters, so could be vulnerable to climate warming (McPhail 2007). Forestry, mining and other hydorelectric or water management dam structures also occur in watersheds containing Dolly Varden (Reid and Michalski 2006). Impacts from dams include fluctuating water flows/levels, migration barriers, flooding, loss of habitat and habitat fragmentation (Miller et al. 2008). Forestry activities can result in increased sediment loads as well as road and culvert construction (Miller et al. 2008). Mining can result in habitat losses, stream crossings, fish passage issues, and increased metals, total suspended solids and water withdrawal (Miller et al. 2008). Overall threat was considered med-low to reflect the uncertainty associated with these threats and Dolly Varden presence, | + + + +G = Relatively Stable (<=10% change) | + + +In most parts of coastal BC, Dolly Varden are abundant and not heavily exploited (McPhail 2007); therefore, the population trend for northern Dolly Varden is believed to be relatively stable. Reid and Michalski (2006) found most populations on Vancouver Island to be stable or increasing. However, the peak spawner count on Thelwood Creek declined from 1998 to 2001 (Lough et al. 2003). Overall, populations are thought to be stable. | + + +G = Relatively Stable (<=10% change) | + +The northern population of Dolly Varden has declined over the long term (last 25-30 years on Vancouver Island; Michalski 2006). The long term trend for other parts of the range of northern Dolly Varden is unknown, but believed to be stable (McPhail 2007). Thus, overall trend is likely stable to slight decline. | + + + +B=Moderately vulnerable | + +Most fish mature in their fifth growing season (4+; McPhail 2007). Stream-resident females produce 70-500 eggs, while anadromous females produce from 100 to almost 6,000 eggs (McPhail 2007). | + + +C=Moderate. Generalist or community with some key requirements scarce. | + +Dolly Varden exhibit three life history characteristics: anadromy, stream resident and adfluvial (adults live in lakes, but spawn in streams; McPhail 2007). They require running water for spawning and are found in cooler waters (McPhail 2007). | + + ++ + + + | + + + | + + + + | + + | + + + + | Patricia Woodruff (reviewed by S. Pollard) | + +March 18, 2011 | + + +
| + AFCHA05041 + | ++ Salvelinus malma - southern lineage + | + +Salvelinus malma pop. 1 | + +Dolly Varden - Southern Lineage | + ++ + + + | S4 | + +January 02, 2012 | + + +January 02, 2012 | + +This is a new entity that will have a rank added January 2012 when the ranks are published for the year. | + + + +F = 20,000-200,000 square km | + + ++ + + | The southern population of Dolly Varden is found up to the middle of Vancouver Island (Redenbach and Taylor 2002) and occurs throughout southwestern BC (McPhail 2007). Southern Dolly Varden were found on Vancouver Island (Keogh River, Eve River, Jessie Lake, Thelwood Creek, Phillips River and Zeballos River); along the south coast of BC (Mamquam River, Mill Creek, Capilano River, Seymour River, Wakeman River, Southgate River, Silverhope Creek and Loon Lake); in Dallery Creek along the midcoast of BC; Omineca River in the Upper Peace drainage; and Zolzap River in the Nass drainage (Taylor et al. 2001; 2002). A rough estimate would be approximately 60,000km2 for the southern population. | + + +U = Unknown | + + ++ + + | U = Unknown | + + +The area of occupancy for the southern population of Dolly Varden is unknown. | + + ++ + + + | DE = 81 to >300 | + + +Dolly Varden are found in 258 different water bodies in Region 1 Vancouver Island, and 255 different water bodies in Region 2 Lower Mainland (data from FISS). | + + +EF = 41 to >125 | + + ++ + + | Reid and Michalski (2006) found Dolly Varden populations on Vancouver Island to be generally stable or increasing; therefore, it is likely that at least some of the occurences are in areas of good viability or ecological integrity. | + + + +Rank Factor not assessed | + + +The number of occurrences in protected areas are unknown, although it is likely that Dolly Varden are present in provincial parks and other protected sites, due to the large number of water bodies in which it is found. | + + +G = 100,000 - 1,000,000 individuals | + + +In Thelwood Creek, there was a peak count of 405 spawners in 1998 and 236 spawners in 2001 (Lough et al. 2003). Tredger (1979) estimated a spawning populations of 2000 fish based on juvenile sampling data and fecundity and survival rates; however, Lough et al. (2003) found Dolly Varden to have lower fecundities, which would reduce the population estimate to 1100-1900 spawners. If there were 500 spawners in each system, there could be approximately 250,000 spawners in the southern population, but the actual population size, including juvenile estimates, is unknown. | + + + + + +BC = High - medium | + + +Overall threat rating is high-medium. Overfishing has been a concern (although regulations have been switched in some areas to catch and release, which seems to be assisting in population recovery; Michalski 2006). Dolly Varden prefer cooler waters, so would be vulnerable to climate warming (McPhail 2007). Michalski (2006) noted that Fry Creek on Vancouver Island is subject to extreme flucuations in water flow due to BC Hydro operations (as part of the Salmon River diversion); high flows have negative impacts on migrating and spawning adults, while low flows impact incubating and rearing Dolly Varden. The Salmon River diversion could also be causing a decrease in watershed productivity (Michalski 2006). Forestry, mining and other hydorelectric or water management dam structures also occur in watersheds containing Dolly Varden (Reid and Michalski 2006). Impacts from dams include fluctuating water flows/levels, migration barriers, flooding, loss of habitat and habitat fragmentation (Miller et al. 2008). Forestry activities can result in increased sediment loads as well as road and culvert construction (Miller et al. 2008). Mining can result in habitat losses, stream crossings, fish passage issues, and increased metals, total suspended solids and water withdrawal (Miller et al. 2008). Eastern brook trout, an introduced species, will hybridize with Dolly Varden (McPhail 2007). | + + + +G = Relatively Stable (<=10% change) | + + +In most parts of coastal BC, Dolly Varden are abundant and not heavily exploited (McPhail 2007); therefore, the population trend for southern Dolly Varden is believed to be relatively stable. Reid and Michalski (2006) found most populations on Vancouver Island to be stable or increasing. However, the peak spawner count on Thelwood Creek declined from 1998 to 2001 (Lough et al. 2003). | + + +F = Decline of 10-30% | + +The southern population of Dolly Varden has declined over the long term (last 25-30 years on Vancouver Island; Michalski 2006). | + + + +B=Moderately vulnerable | + +Most fish mature in their fifth growing season (4+; McPhail 2007). Stream-resident females produce 70-500 eggs, while anadromous females produce from 100 to almost 6,000 eggs (McPhail 2007). | + + +C=Moderate. Generalist or community with some key requirements scarce. | + +Dolly Varden exhibit three life history characteristics: anadromy, stream resident and adfluvial (adults live in lakes, but spawn in streams; McPhail 2007). They require running water for spawning and are found in cooler waters (McPhail 2007). | + + ++ + + + | + + + | + + + + | + + | + + + + | Patricia Woodruff (reviewed by S. Pollard) | + +March 18, 2011 | + + +
| + AFCHA05050 + | ++ Salvelinus namaycush + | + ++ + | Lake Trout | + ++ + + + | S4 | + +November 04, 2000 | + + +May 15, 2019 | + +Lake Trout are found in lakes and rivers throughout BC, excluding the coast. They are vulnerable to overfishing, mature later and have a low fecundity. As a cold water species, any changes in climate could be detrimental to this species. | + + + +G = 200,000-2,500,000 square km | + + ++ + + | The native range of lake trout in BC includes the upper and middle Fraser system; the upper Skeena, Nass, Iskut-Stikine, Taku and Yukon drainage systems; and the Peace and Liard systems (McPhail 2007). Populations south of Shuswap Lake are probably introduced (McPhail, in Klinkenberg ND, accessed November 5, 2018). | + + ++ + + | + + + | + + + | + + + | + + + + | DE = 81 to >300 | + + +Lake trout are found naturally in both small and large lakes, ranging from Shuswap Lake to the northern border of BC (McPhail 2007). | + + +Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + | + + + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + | FG = 10,000 - 1,000,000 individuals | + + +The number of mature lake trout vary per lake from the low hundreds to closer to 1000 (Anderson 2014). | + + + + + +C = Medium | + + +Lake trout are vulnerable to overfishing, and there have been cases where high harvest rates have led to collapse of lake trout populations (Anderson 2014) | + + + +F = Decline of 10-30% | + + +There have been management issues with exploited populations of lake trout; however, there are also a number of healthy systems in the different regions (Giroux 2003; Anderson 2007; Northrup 2008; Anderson 2014). | + + +F = Decline of 10-30% | + +Lake trout have shown declines (in some systems, down to critically low levels) in systems in both the Skeena and Peace regions since the 1970's (Giroux 2003; Anderson 2014). | + + + +B=Moderately vulnerable | + +Lake trout mature between the ages of 5-13, and have large eggs with low fecundity (McPhail 2007). | + + +B=Narrow. Specialist or community with key requirements common. | + +Shallow and deep waters of northern lakes and streams and restricted to relatively deep lakes in the southern part of it's range (Fishbase 2018). Lake trout prefer cool water (McPhail 2007). | + + ++ + + + | + + + | + + + + | + + | + + + + | Woodruff, P. | + +March 25, 2015 | + + +
| + AFCQC05020 + | ++ Sander vitreus + | + +Stizostedion vitreum | + +Walleye | + ++ + + + | S4S5 | + +January 02, 2012 | + + +May 15, 2019 | + +Native populations of Walleye occur throughout the northeast corner of BC and populations have been introduced in southern B.C. | + + + +F = 20,000-200,000 square km | + + ++ + + | Approximately 88 100 km squared (based on points in McPhail 2007). | + + +U = Unknown | + + ++ + + | U = Unknown | + + ++ + + | + + + + | DE = 81 to >300 | + + +Native populations throughout the northeast corner of BC. There are introduced populations mixed in as well as in southern BC making the determination of the number of native EOs difficult. | + + +Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + | + + + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + + + + | CD = Medium - low | + + +Overall I expect they are OK. Site C represents a future threat to Peace River populations and Oil and Gas development may threaten some populations (like the Petitot) just thru access creation. This is hypothetical- not demonstrated (Ted Down, pers.com) | + + + +G = Relatively Stable (<=10% change) | + + ++ + + | G = Relatively Stable (<=10% change) | + ++ + + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + ++ + + | C=Moderate. Generalist or community with some key requirements scarce. | + ++ + + | + + + + | + + + | + + + + | + + | + + + + | Ramsay, L. | + +October 31, 2011 | + + +
| + AFCHB03030 + | ++ Spirinchus sp. 1 + | + ++ + | Pygmy Longfin Smelt | + ++ + + + | S2 | + +May 15, 2019 | + + +May 15, 2019 | + +Pygmy Longfin Smelt is restricted to two lakes in the lower mainland, Pitt Lake and Harrison Lake. | + + + +D = 1,000-5,000 square km | + + ++ + + | The range extent is approximately 3800m2. This encompasses Harrison and Pitt lakes which are located in the lower Fraser River Valley. | + + +E = 26-125 | + + +68 | + + ++ + + | The area of Pitt Lake is 53 km2 and the area of Harrison Lake is 272 km2. Overlaying a 2x2 km2 grid over the lakes results in 68 2x2 grid cells. | + + ++ + + + | A = 1 - 5 | + + +There are two populations; one in Harrison Lake and one in Pitt Lake. | + + +Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + | + + + + | A = None | + + ++ + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + + +Combining the two lakes and making the same assumptions about proportions of adults in both populations, the total number of pygmy longfin smelt in Canada is estimated between 43 and 180 million and the total number of breeding adults range between 11.6 and 48.6 million (McPhail 1993 and Henderson 1991 via COSEWIC report 2004). Although numbers have been estimated, they are not used for rank assessment, as a stochastic event can potentially wipe out either of the two occurrences, no matter what the population size. | + + + + + +U = Unknown | + + +The following are possible threats as indicated in the 2004 draft COSEWIC report; at this point there isn't evidence that any of these threats have caused issues specifically for the Pygmy Longfin Smelt. "The greatest threats to the pygmy longfin smelt probably are habitat loss and declines in habitat quality. A reduced flow in their spawning streams caused either naturally or by human disturbance appears to cause low recruitment in longfin smelt. Water diversions for domestic and industrial activities (e.g. hydro power generation, agriculture) could result in severe declines in stream flows. Other industries (e.g. mining for gravel and minerals, logging) can cause loss or decline of habitat quality if not properly managed or regulated. Release of effluents from future industrial, agricultural and domestic developments could release toxic substances into pygmy longfin smelt watersheds that are harmful to the fish directly or indirectly by affecting the lake habitat (e.g. through eutrophication). Disturbance from heavy recreational use could also threaten the pygmy longfin smelt particularly since their ecological requirements are so little known. Introductions of exotic fish species or salmon and trout enhancement could increase competition and predation in the lake habitat and cause declines in the populations." (Stamford and Hume 2004). |
+
+
+
+U = Unknown | + + ++ + + | U = Unknown | + ++ + + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + ++ + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + ++ + + | + + + + | + + + | + + + + | + + | + + + + | Ramsay, L.R and S. G. Cannings | + +October 07, 2013 | + + +
| + AFCHB03010 + | ++ Spirinchus thaleichthys + | + ++ + | Longfin Smelt | + ++ + + + | S3? | + +May 15, 2019 | + + +May 15, 2019 | + +Longfin Smelt is presumed to be spread along the coast, however this hasn't been confirmed. The largest known population is the Fraser River estuary. | + + + +F = 20,000-200,000 square km | + + ++ + + | Approximately 57 000 km2 taken from Prince Rupert to the southwest corner of BC. | + + +U = Unknown | + + ++ + + | + + + | + + + | + + + + | BC = 6 - 80 | + + +McPhail (2007) states the BC distribution as along the entire coast in large river estuaries, however these have not all been surveyed or the presence documented. As of April 2019, there are 11 records in the provincial database and at least 5 of them are within the same waterbody (Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy ? Knowledge Management ND; accessed April 11, 2019) . Natureserve has 20-80 occurrences within Alaska, California, Oregon and Washington; an occurrence is considered to be the entire waterbody (NatureServe ND; accessed April 4, 2019). | + + +Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + | + + + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + + + + | BC = High - medium | + + +The only known "major" run is the Fraser River (MacPhail 2007) which has had significant disturbance and will likely have more. The following is a paragraph describing potential threats for Alaska' populations, many of which will be relevent for BC's mid-coast. (from http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/species/speciesinfo/_aknhp/Longfin_smelt_final.pdf accsessed 24 October 2011): "Potential threats include habitat alteration, reproductive failure and effects of climate change. Freshwater and estuarine habitats may be threatened by pollution (nearshore chronic and acute pollution, including oil spills, wastewater effluent) and reduced fish passage due to diversion of water, although this is unlikely to impact Alaska populations as severely as those in California. Other habitat alteration and impacts to survival could result from dams, timber harvest, mining, and sedimentation (ADFG 2005). High interannual variability is suggested by saltwater trawl surveys; due to their short 2-year life cycle this species is sensitive to relatively brief periods of reproductive failure (USFWS 1994, ADFG 2005). Broad-scale climatic shifts affecting marine ecological conditions are also of potential concern, especially at northerly latitudes". |
+
+
+
+U = Unknown | + + ++ + + | U = Unknown | + +There have been significant declines in California, but these have not been recorded in BC. | + + + +Rank Factor not assessed | + ++ + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + ++ + + | + + + + | + + + | + + + + | + + | + + + + | Ramsay, L., L. Gelling | + +May 15, 2019 | + + +
| + AFCHA06010 + | ++ Stenodus leucichthys + | + ++ + | Inconnu | + ++ + + + | S3 | + +November 04, 2000 | + + +May 15, 2019 | + ++ + + + | F = 20,000-200,000 square km | + + ++ + + | ?The distribution of inconnu in B.C. is disjunct ? there is a freshwater-resident population in Teslin Lake and a migratory population in the Liard River system. The Liard population is biologically complex: some individuals appear to be part of the general upper Mackenzie River population and probably isn?t anadromous but other individuals are known to migrate to the Mackenzie Delta, and others tagged individuals have been taken in the Beaufort Sea. There is some evidence that some of the Liard population breeds in B.C.; however, no fry have been collected in B.C. although one juvenile was collected in the Ft. Nelson River. In contrast, the Teslin Lake population is thought to breed in the lake and appears to be isolated from the migratory Yukon populations.? (D. McPhail, pers. comm., cited within Klinkenberg ND; accessed April 23, 2019). | + + ++ + + | + + + | + + + | + + + | + + + + | B = 6 - 20 | + + +Known from the Muskwa River, Liard River, Prophet River, Fort Nelson River, Teslin Lake and Tutshi Lake. | + + +Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + | + + + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + + + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + + ++ + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + ++ + + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + ++ + + | Rank Factor not assessed | + ++ + + | + + + + | + + + | + + + + | + + | + + + + | Gelling, L. | + +May 15, 2019 | + + +
| + AFCHB04010 + | ++ Thaleichthys pacificus + | + ++ + | Eulachon | + ++ + + + | S2S3 | + +March 06, 2000 | + + +January 12, 2004 | + +Eulachon are limited in range and have had significant long term declines. Short term declines have occurred but have been cyclical in some cases. | + + + +F = 20,000-200,000 square km | + + ++ + + | Occupies a narrow strip of the freshwater along the mainland coast, following the coastal rainforest. Offshore they can be found in Hecate Strait, Queen Charlotte Sound, west coast Vancouver Island - generally on the shelf often at depths of 80 - 200 m. |
+
+
++ + + | + + + | EG = 101-10,000 | + + +Based on a maximum of 33 runs with longer runs up to 43 km inland (Nass) or Skeena at 42 km there is about a maximum of 1300 km of occupied river. | + + ++ + + + | BC = 6 - 80 | + + +Documented spawning in 33 rivers within BC, but may only use 14-15 on a sustained basis. Major river systems used for spawning include the Fraser, Skeena, Nass and Klinaklini (Fisheries and Oceans Canada; http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/ops/fm/herring/eulachon/default_e.htm). There are 10 in BC that are considered "major" (Hay 1999). Eulachon also occurr on the offshore shelf around Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait, Queen Charlotte Sound and the West Coast of Vancouver Island generally at depths of 80-200 m. Rivers in BC with runs include Nass, Skeena, Kitimat, Kildala, Kemano/Wahoo, Kowesas, Kitlope, Kimsquit, Bella Coola, Kilbella/Chuckwalla/Wannock/Owikeno, Kingcome, Klinaklini, Franklin, Hemathko and Fraser Rivers (Hay 1999). | + + +C = 4 - 12 | + + ++ + + | There are thought to be 10 major runs within BC (Hay 1999). | + + + +A = None | + + +There is a fishery for eulachon with a daily limit of 20 kilograms. | + + +F = 10,000 - 100,000 individuals | + + ++ + + + + + | B = High | + + +By-catch by groundfish and shrimp trawls can be high, however the incidental bycatch by the shrimp fishery has declined since 1997 (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2003). Spawning failures have also been attributed to unnatural noise, over harvest, water quality degradation (urban land development, coastal forest practices) industrial activity (construction, blasting, changes in hydrology) and dredging. Increasing water temperatures have been found to be related to smaller sizes, lower fecundity, and lower returns. There also may be more predators as a result. The temperatures may be beyond preferred maximum for spawning (Hay 1999). | + + + +FH = Decline of <30% to increase of 25% | + + +Sharp declines in runs also observed in the Columbia (declined to 5-10%), Klinaklini and possibly other rivers in 1994. Skeena and Kemano populations have shown some recovery since 1994 (Hay 1999). Rivers which experienced virtually no returns in 2000 were: Stikine, Unuk, Skeena, Kitimat, Kemano, Kitlope, Bella Coola, Kimsquit, Owikeeno, and Kingcome Rivers and then good returns were seen in the Skeena and Kingcome Inlets in 2001 and 2002. Concurrently (2000-2002), there has been a recent increase in the abundance of eulachons in marine waters off BC and parts of Alaska. Except for 1996, Eulachon returns to the Fraser have been in sharp decline since 1993. However, the forecast for 2003 looks very good, based on the offshore biomass and age of fish with genetics indicating that they are Fraser and Columbia River stocks. Over the past 4 years there have been very poor returns on the central coast rivers, Gardner Canal, Dean Channel and the Rivers Inlet systems (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2003). Short-term trends appear to fluctuate greatly. |
+
+
+Rank Factor not assessed | + +Historically very abundant (up to early 1960's), however generally considered to be in a coast wide decline since the early 1990's. The Fraser River has been declining since the early 1960's and has declined to the point where they are no longer available for traditional harvest. They have not been seen in many traditional spawning areas for many years. Eulachon runs have been observed to suffer drastic declines for years and come back in large numbers as recorded on the Columbia between 1835-1865. However these these cyclical declines have not been observed/recorded in Fraser River populations (Hay 1999). |
+
+
+
+B=Moderately vulnerable | + +Eulachon are susceptible to disturbance. Runs have been observed to turn away if the fish detect a disturbance (rules based upon traditional knowledge forbid disturbance within the first few days of the run to allow spawning before the start of harvest) (Hay 1999). | + + +B=Narrow. Specialist or community with key requirements common. | + +Require cold temperatures. | + + ++ + + + | + + + | There is a lack of stock assessment information for most eulachon stocks. Development of biologically based total allowable catches for all areas and refinements to the stock assessment process in the Fraser River are required. Improving catch reporting methods and standards can be used to help with inventries (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2003). |
+
+
+
++ + | All of the biological indicators, presently in use on the Fraser River, are limited by their short time series. Therefore, it is important to continue to collect and refine the pre-season biological indicators for the Fraser River eulachon fisheries, specifically eulachon genetic stock identification to identify river of origin in offshore waters, and the collection of the spawning stock biomass (SSB). These are used to then set catches. Restrict dredging in the lower Fraser River during eulachon migration, spawning, egg and larval development (early March to June) (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2003). |
+
+
+
+Ramsay, L. | + +November 18, 2003 | + + +
| + AFCHA07013 + | ++ Thymallus arcticus - Nahanni lineage + | + +Thymallus arcticus pop. 3 | + +Arctic Grayling - Nahanni Lineage | + ++ + + + | S3? | + +January 02, 2012 | + + +January 02, 2012 | + +Arctic Grayling, Nahanni lineage, are found only within the Nahanni and Lower Liard rivers in northwestern BC. Threats to this population include impacts from forestry and agricultural, oil and gas and exploration and mining. | + + + +F = 20,000-200,000 square km | + + ++ + + | The Nahanni lineage of Arctic grayling were found in the Muskwa, Beaver, LaBiche, Petitot, and Minnaker rivers in the Lower Liard River drainage, and the Nahanni River in the Mackenzie River drainage (Stamford and Taylor 2004). There is some overlap with the Southern Beringean lineage lineage within the Beaver, LaBiche, and Minnaker rivers in the Lower Liard River drainage; these will be included in the Nahanni lineage. | + + +U = Unknown | + + ++ + + | U = Unknown | + + +The area of occupancy for the Nahanni lineage of Arctic grayling is unknown. | + + ++ + + + | BC = 6 - 80 | + + +The Nahanni lineage has only been confirmed genetically in 8 different rivers in BC (Stamford and Taylor 2004). It has only been identified in the Nahanni and Lower Liard rivers, and is closely associated with the Nahanni River Valley located in the upper Mackenzie River watershed (Miller et al. 2008); therefore, it is unlikely to occur in any other watersheds. Specifically, Arctic Grayling presence in the Lower Liard includes: Muskwa, Prophet, Toad, Beaver, Fort Nelson, Petitot, Fontas, Sikanni Chief (Miller et al. 2008). | + + +U = Unknown | + + ++ + + | The number of sites with good viability or ecological integrity is unknown. | + + + +Rank Factor not assessed | + + +A portion of the Liard River is protected by the Liard River Corridor Provincial Park and Protected Area. | + + +EF = 2,500 - 100,000 individuals | + + +The exact population size for the Nahanni lineage of Arctic grayling is unknown. Two Arctic grayling were captured by electrofishing and one by seine net in the Muskwa River in 2007 (data from Fish Collection Permit FJ07-25405). Assuming 100 individuals per km of river (Miller et al. 2008) and approximately 600km of river inhabited (estimate from Figure 3 in Stamford and Taylor 2004), there could be up to 60,000 fish (juveniles and adults) present. | + + + + + +B = High | + + +Threats to the Nahanni lineage include ongoing forestry and agricultural impacts, continuing and new developments in oil and gas projects and exploration, and mining (Miller et al. 2008). Placer mining increases the turbidity of the water, and leads to a decrease in the number of juvenile grayling that are able to use the habitat (Birtwell et al. 1984). Mining and oil and gas development can result in habitat losses, stream crossings, fish passage issues, and increased metals, total suspended solids and water withdrawal (Miller et al. 2008). Overfishing and climate warming are also potential threats (Miller et al. 2008). | + + + +U = Unknown | + + +The short-term trend for the Nahanni lineage of Arctic grayling is unknown. McPhail (2007) reports that Arctic grayling populations in the Mackenzie River are in better shape than in the Upper Peace watershed. | + + +G = Relatively Stable (<=10% change) | + +The long-term trend for the Nahanni lineage of Arctic grayling is unknown. However, due to the increased development of industrial activities in the North (i.e., Alaskan pipeline, Northeast Coal Development Project, oil and gas development and mining), there may have been some impacts to habitats. Stable to slight decline? | + + + +C=Not intrinsically vulnerable | + +Arctic grayling mature at approximately age 4-5; the females can produce from 1000-17000 eggs dependent on size (McPhail 2007; Miller et al. 2008). | + + +B=Narrow. Specialist or community with key requirements common. | + +Arctic grayling are a cold water adapted species; however, they require warmer water for spawning and rearing (Mike Stamford, pers. comm.). | + + ++ + + + | + + + | + + + + | + + | + + + + | Patricia Woodruff (reviewed by Sue Pollard) | + +March 18, 2011 | + + +
| + AFCHA07014 + | ++ Thymallus arcticus - Southern Beringean lineage + | + +Thymallus arcticus pop. 4 | + +Arctic Grayling - Southern Beringean lineage | + ++ + + + | S4? | + +January 02, 2012 | + + +January 02, 2012 | + +This is a new entity that will have a rank added April 2012 when the ranks are published for the year. | + + + +FG = 20,000-2,500,000 square km | + + ++ + + | The South Beringian lineage is found in the Yukon, Upper Liard and upper/lower Peace rivers, and the west coast of BC (Miller et al. 2008). The South Beringian lineage has been identified in the Chena River in the Lower Yukon River; the Teslin River and Plate Lake in the Upper Yukon River; Becharof Lake and Copper and Stikine rivers along the Pacific coast; the Blue, Upper Tootsie, Turnagain and Trout rivers in the Upper Liard River drainage; the Keel River inthe Mackenzie River drainage; the Table, Anzac, Nation, Mesilinka and Ingenika rivers in the Upper Peace River drainage; and Burnt and Beatton rivers in the Lower Peace River drainage (Stamford and Taylor 2004). This area would equal approximately 250,000km2 (estimated using figure 1 in Stamford and Taylor (2004)). There is some overlap with the Nahanni lineage within the Beaver, LaBiche, and Minnaker rivers in the Lower Liard River drainage; these will be included in the Nahanni lineage. |
+
+
+U = Unknown | + + ++ + + | U = Unknown | + + +The area of occupancy for the South Beringian lineage of Arctic grayling is unknown. | + + ++ + + + | C = 21 - 80 | + + +South Beringian lineage Arctic grayling have been genetically confirmed in 23 different waterbodies (Stamford and Taylor 2004; Miller et al. 2008); DNA testing would likely be required to determine whether this lineage is present in other waterbodies as well. Miller reports Arctic Grayling from: Coastal rivers: Stikine (Klappan, Iskut, Tuya, Spatsizi), Taku (Nahlin, Nakina L., Tedideech L., Alsek); Yukon: Atlin, Tagish, Bennett, Teslin; Upper Liard: Turnagain, U. Liard, Kechika, Dease, Frog; L. Peace: Beaton, Halfway, Pine, Murray; U. Peace: Parsnip, Finlay, Osilinka, Mesilinka, Ingenika, Omenica As the 23 refers to "genetically confirmed"; the actual number of waterbodies where the unit occurs will be significantly higher. |
+
+
+U = Unknown | + + ++ + + | The number of sites with good viability or ecological integrity is unknown. A number of studies on the Peace/Williston Arctic grayling indicate that these populations are at very much reduced abundance compared to historic times prior to construction of the W.C. Bennett Dam (between 1961-1968). Much habitat was flooded and populations now persist in isolation of one another; however, they are thought to be fairly stable. Elsewhere, local impacts associated with fish introductions, placer mining, gold and copper mining, road and rail development and forestry may compromise some populations in terms of habitat quality and passage (Miller et al. 2008). | + + + +Rank Factor not assessed | + + +A portion of the Liard River is protected by the Liard River Corridor Provincial Park and Protected Area. | + + +FG = 10,000 - 1,000,000 individuals | + + +In the Prophet River, abundance estimates were approximately 114 grayling per km (Stewart et al. 1982 in Miller et al. 2008). In the Table River there were 31-34 adults/km; in the Anzac River there were 34-82 adults/km; in the Mesilinka there were 20-30 adults/km; in the Parsnip there were 46 young of the year and 29 one year olds per km in 2000 (summarized by Miller et al. 2008). Arctic grayling were described as numerous in the Peace and Finlay rivers; however, only 279 Arctic grayling were captured in the Parsnip, Finlay and Peace basins in 1975, and there has since been a decrease in numbers (Miller et al. 2008). At approximately 1000km of river (likely an underestimate; obtained using Figure 1 in Stamford and Taylor 2004) and 100 grayling per km, there would be approximately 100,000 Arctic grayling present in BC. | + + + + + +A = Very high | + + +The threat to the South Beringian lineage of Arctic grayling has been calculated to be very high. Several kilometres of fluvial habitat was flooded in the Finlay, lower Peace and Parsnip watersheds with the creation of the Peace Williston Reservoir (Miller et al. 2008). Impacts from dams include fluctuating water flows/levels, migration barriers, flooding, loss of habitat and habitat fragmentation (Miller et al. 2008). There are also proposed hydroelectric developments on the McGregor River (which could result in increased sedimentation, increased water flows and introduced species) and Site C (which would cause loss of critical habitats, increased access for anglers, and loss of connectivity between fluvial stocks; Miller et al. 2008). Habitat alteration and degradation have occurred in the Mason River, as a result of forestry and mining activities (Miller et al. 2008). Forestry activities can result in increased sediment loads as well as road and culvert construction, which can increase access to pristine watersheds and become a full or partial barrier to fish passage (Miller et al. 2008). Placer mining has had impacts on the Omineca River (Miller et al. 2008). There are gold and copper mining operations on the Upper Finlay, and forestry on the Lower Finlay (Miller et al. 2008). There are both rail and forestry activites on the Parsnip River, which can result in increased access for anglers, blockage of fish passage, and increased sediment inputs (Miller et al. 2008). The Nation River has forestry development and placer operations (Miller et al. 2008). Coal, oil and gas development are occurring in the Peace Region; there are also agricultural impacts, which include streambank erosion, sediment and fish passage problems (Miller et al. 2008). In the Skeena region, there has been habitat alteration and destruction due to both placer and conventional mining (Miller et al. 2008). Placer mining increases the turbidity of the water, and leads to a decrease in the number of juvenile grayling that are able to use the habitat (Birtwell et al. 1984). Mining and oil and gas development can result in habitat losses, stream crossings, fish passage issues, and increased metals, total suspended solids and water withdrawal (Miller et al. 2008). As Arctic grayling are also a popular sport fish, overfishing is also a potential threat (Miller et al. 2008). Climate warming will also likely affect this coldwater species (Miller et al. 2008). | + + + +G = Relatively Stable (<=10% change) | + + +As no index sites have been established for Arctic Grayling, it is not possible to assess abundance trends over time. Ongoing development undoubtedly impacts habitat to varying degrees but it is not possible to quantify trends in the short-term. | + + +EF = Decline of 10-50% | + +The South Beringian lineage of the Arctic grayling has declined; it is believed that only 1% of the historical abundance is present in the upper Peace River watershed based on genetic assessments(Stamford and Taylor 2005); comparative catches in the Peace/Williston drainage from the early 1980s to the early 1990s suggest a decline as well. Elsewhere, Arctic grayling have undoubtedly experienced local long-term declines associated with habitat fragmentation and degradation. Based on this, declines for this group might be expected to be in the range of 10-25% over the long-term. | + + + +B=Moderately vulnerable | + +Arctic grayling mature at approximately age 4-5; the females can produce from 1000-17000 eggs dependent on size (McPhail 2007; Miller et al. 2008). | + + +B=Narrow. Specialist or community with key requirements common. | + +Arctic grayling are a cold water adapted species; however, they require warmer water for spawning and rearing (Mike Stamford, pers. comm.). | + + ++ + + + | + + + | An inventory of habitat, habitat quality and number of fish is required. | + + + ++ + | + + + + | Patricia Woodruff (reviewed by S. Pollard) | + +March 18, 2011 | + + +
| Search Criteria |
| Fish, Freshwater OR Fish, Marine Sort Order:Scientific Name Ascending |
| Open Government License– BC |
| Element Code | +Scientific Name | +English Name | +Biogeoclimatic Units | +Provincial | +BC List | +Global | +COSEWIC | +SARA | +Provincial FRPA | +Land Use Objectives | +CDC Mapped Locations - Public | +CDC Mapped Locations - Confidential | +
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| +AFC4G21020 | ++Acantholiparis caecus | ++Fanged Snailfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4G21010 | ++Acantholiparis opercularis | ++Spiny Snailfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCAA01030 | ++Acipenser medirostris | ++Green Sturgeon | ++CDF; CWH | ++S2S3N (2019) | ++Blue | ++G2 (2022) | ++SC | ++1-SC (2006) | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCAA01050 | ++Acipenser transmontanus | ++White Sturgeon | ++BG; CDF; CWH; ICH; IDF; MS; PP; SBS | ++S2 (2018) | ++No Status | ++G4 (2024) | ++E/T | ++1-E | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCAA01051 | ++Acipenser transmontanus pop. 1 | ++White Sturgeon (Upper Kootenay River Population) | ++ICH | ++S1 (2018) | ++Red | ++G4T1Q (2006) | ++E | ++1-E (2003) | ++ | ++ | +Y | ++ |
| +AFCAA01052 | ++Acipenser transmontanus pop. 2 | ++White Sturgeon (Upper Columbia River Population) | ++ICH | ++S1 (2018) | ++Red | ++G4T3T4Q (2024) | ++E | ++1-E (2003) | ++ | ++ | +Y | ++ |
| +AFCAA01054 | ++Acipenser transmontanus pop. 4 | ++White Sturgeon (Lower Fraser River Population) | ++CDF; CWH; IDF | ++S1S2 (2018) | ++Red | ++G4T2Q (2002) | ++T | ++ | ++ | ++ | +Y | ++ |
| +AFCAA01055 | ++Acipenser transmontanus pop. 5 | ++White Sturgeon (Upper Fraser River Population) | ++ICH; SBS | ++S2 (2018) | ++Red | ++G4T1Q (2001) | ++E | ++1-E (2003) | ++ | ++ | +Y | ++ |
| +AFCJB01010 | ++Acrocheilus alutaceus | ++Chiselmouth | ++ | ++S4 (2019) | ++Yellow | ++G5 (2011) | ++NAR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4F02020 | ++Agonopsis vulsa | ++Northern Spearnose Poacher | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCMC05010 | ++Albatrossia pectoralis | ++Giant Grenadier | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC8E01020 | ++Alepisaurus ferox | ++Longnose Lancetfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHH02010 | ++Alepocephalus tenebrosus | ++California Slickhead | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC1D01010 | ++Allocyttus folletti | ++Oxeye Oreo | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCSC04010 | ++Allolumpenus hypochromus | ++Y-prickleback | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++NAR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHB05010 | ++Allosmerus elongatus | ++Whitebait Smelt | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFDDC01020 | ++Alopias vulpinus | ++Thresher Shark | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCFA01060 | ++Alosa sapidissima | ++American Shad | ++ | ++SNA (2019) | ++Exotic | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFDFD01180 | ++Amblyraja badia | ++Broad Skate | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCKA06030 | ++Ameiurus melas | ++Black Bullhead | ++ | ++SNA (2019) | ++Exotic | ++G5 (2015) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCKA06040 | ++Ameiurus natalis | ++Yellow Bullhead | ++ | ++SNA (2019) | ++Exotic | ++G5 (2011) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCKA06050 | ++Ameiurus nebulosus | ++Brown Bullhead | ++ | ++SNA (2019) | ++Exotic | ++G5 (2015) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCS601030 | ++Ammodytes hexapterus | ++Pacific Sand Lance | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCQK03030 | ++Amphistichus rhodoterus | ++Redtail Surfperch | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCSD02010 | ++Anarrhichthys ocellatus | ++Wolf-eel | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++NAR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4F05010 | ++Anoplagonus inermis | ++Smooth Alligatorfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCSC05010 | ++Anoplarchus insignis | ++Slender Cockscomb | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCSC05020 | ++Anoplarchus purpurescens | ++High Cockscomb | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCZD02010 | ++Anoplogaster cornuta | ++Longhorn Fangtooth | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4C01010 | ++Anoplopoma fimbria | ++Sablefish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC8F01020 | ++Anotopterus nikparini | ++North Pacific Daggertooth | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCMH01020 | ++Antimora microlepis | ++Pacific Flatnose | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCS211010 | ++Aphanopus carbo | ++Black Scabbardfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCQR03020 | ++Apodichthys flavidus | ++Penpoint Gunnel | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCQR03010 | ++Apodichthys fucorum | ++Rockweed Gunnel | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFDDF01010 | ++Apristurus brunneus | ++Brown Cat Shark | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++DD | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4G08010 | ++Aptocyclus ventricosus | ++Smooth Lumpsucker | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC8D02010 | ++Arctozenus risso | ++White Barracudina | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC7C01020 | ++Argyropelecus sladeni | ++Lowcrest Hatchetfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2009) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC7B04010 | ++Aristostomias scintillans | ++Shining Loosejaw | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4E23020 | ++Artedius fenestralis | ++Padded Sculpin | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4E23030 | ++Artedius harringtoni | ++Scalyhead Sculpin | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4E23040 | ++Artedius lateralis | ++Smoothhead Sculpin | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4E24010 | ++Ascelichthys rhodorus | ++Rosylip Sculpin | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4E25010 | ++Asemichthys taylori | ++Spinynose Sculpin | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++DD | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCTB19020 | ++Atheresthes stomias | ++Arrowtooth | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCND04010 | ++Atherinops affinis | ++Topsmelt | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCQH10010 | ++Atractoscion nobilis | ++White Seabass | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCPA05010 | ++Aulorhynchus flavidus | ++Tube-snout | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCEJ02010 | ++Avocettina infans | ++Closespine Snipe Eel | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC3B03020 | ++Balistes polylepis | ++Finescale Triggerfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC9B02010 | ++Barbourisia rufa | ++Velvet Whalefish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC7B05010 | ++Bathophilus flemingi | ++Highfin Dragonfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4F06010 | ++Bathyagonus alascanus | ++Gray Starsnout | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4F06020 | ++Bathyagonus infraspinatus | ++Spinycheek Starsnout | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4F06030 | ++Bathyagonus nigripinnis | ++Blackfin Poacher | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4F06040 | ++Bathyagonus pentacanthus | ++Bigeye Poacher | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHF02020 | ++Bathylagus pacificus | ++Slender Blacksmelt | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHG02010 | ++Bathylychnops exilis | ++Javelin Spookfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCRY01010 | ++Bathymaster caeruleofasciatus | ++Alaskan Ronquil | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCRY01020 | ++Bathymaster signatus | ++Searcher | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFDFD02080 | ++Bathyraja abyssicola | ++Abyssal Skate | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFDFD02010 | ++Bathyraja aleutica | ++Aleutian Skate | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFDFD02030 | ++Bathyraja interrupta | ++Sandpaper Skate | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++NAR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFDFD02140 | ++Bathyraja minispinosa | ++Whitebrow Skate | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2008) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFDFD02040 | ++Bathyraja parmifera | ++Alaska Skate | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFDFD02060 | ++Bathyraja trachura | ++Roughtail Skate | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC8G01010 | ++Benthalbella dentata | ++Northern Pearleye | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC8G01020 | ++Benthalbella linguidens | ++Longfin Pearleye | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCS202020 | ++Benthodesmus pacificus | ++Frostfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCS202040 | ++Benthodesmus tenuis | ++Javelinfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4E26010 | ++Blepsias bilobus | ++Crested Sculpin | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4E26020 | ++Blepsias cirrhosus | ++Silverspotted Sculpin | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4F07010 | ++Bothragonus swanii | ++Rockhead | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCS802020 | ++Bothrocara brunneum | ++Twoline Eelpout | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCS802030 | ++Bothrocara molle | ++Soft Eelpout | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCMG02010 | ++Bothrocara pusillum | ++Alaska Eelpout | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCQK04010 | ++Brachyistius frenatus | ++Kelp Perch | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCRH01040 | ++Brama japonica | ++Pacific Pomfret | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCME01010 | ++Brosmophycis marginata | ++Red Brotula | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCSC06020 | ++Bryozoichthys marjorius | ++Pearly Prickleback | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCJB04010 | ++Carassius auratus | ++Goldfish | ++ | ++SNA (2019) | ++Exotic | ++G5 (1996) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFDDE01010 | ++Carcharodon carcharias | ++White Shark | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G2 (2014) | ++DD | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4G09150 | ++Careproctus cypselurus | ++Falcate Snailfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4G09070 | ++Careproctus gilberti | ++Longfin Snailfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4G09020 | ++Careproctus melanurus | ++Blacktail Snailfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4G09120 | ++Careproctus oregonensis | ++Smallfin Snailfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4G09130 | ++Careproctus ovigerum | ++Abyssal Snailfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCQ101010 | ++Caristius macropus | ++Manefish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCJC02310 | ++Catostomus bondi | ++Cordilleran Sucker | ++BG; CWH; IDF; PP | ++S3? (2019) | ++Blue | ++GNR | ++T | ++ | ++ | ++ | +Y | +Y | +
| +AFCJC02030 | ++Catostomus catostomus | ++Longnose Sucker | ++ | ++S5 (2019) | ++Yellow | ++G5 (2015) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCJC02050 | ++Catostomus columbianus | ++Bridgelip Sucker | ++ | ++S5 (2019) | ++Yellow | ++G5 (2016) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCJC02060 | ++Catostomus commersonii | ++White Sucker | ++ | ++S5 (2019) | ++Yellow | ++G5 (2015) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCJC02280 | ++Catostomus macrocheilus | ++Largescale Sucker | ++ | ++S5 (2019) | ++Yellow | ++G5 (2016) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCJC02260 | ++Catostomus sp. 4 | ++Salish Sucker | ++CWH | ++S2 (2019) | ++Red | ++G1 (2011) | ++E | ++1-T (2005) | ++ | ++ | +Y | ++ |
| +AFCRE01050 | ++Caulolatilus princeps | ++Ocean Whitefish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCYE02010 | ++Ceratias holboelli | ++Deepsea Angler | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCVH01010 | ++Ceratoscopelus townsendi | ++Dogtooth Lanternfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFDDD01010 | ++Cetorhinus maximus | ++Basking Shark | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G2G3 (2014) | ++E | ++1-E (2010) | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCYH01010 | ++Chaenophryne melanorhabdus | ++Smooth Dreamer | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC7B01010 | ++Chauliodus macouni | ++Pacific Viperfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4F09030 | ++Chesnonia verrucosa | ++Warty Poacher | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCSC08020 | ++Chirolophis decoratus | ++Decorated Warbonnet | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCSC08030 | ++Chirolophis nugator | ++Mosshead Warbonnet | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCSC08040 | ++Chirolophis tarsodes | ++Matcheek Warbonnet | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4E27010 | ++Chitonotus pugetensis | ++Roughback Sculpin | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCJB31020 | ++Chrosomus eos | ++Northern Redbelly Dace | ++ | ++S4 (2019) | ++Yellow | ++G5 (2015) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCJB31X10 | ++Chrosomus eos x Chrosomus neogaeus | ++Northern Redbelly Dace X Finescale Dace | ++BWBS | ++S2 (2019) | ++Red | ++GNA (2002) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCJB31040 | ++Chrosomus neogaeus | ++Finescale Dace | ++ | ++S4S5 (2019) | ++Yellow | ++G5 (2016) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCTA01080 | ++Citharichthys sordidus | ++Pacific Sanddab | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCTA01090 | ++Citharichthys stigmaeus | ++Speckled Sanddab | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCQN03010 | ++Clevelandia ios | ++Arrow Goby | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (1996) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCTB23010 | ++Clidoderma asperrimum | ++Roughscale Sole | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4E01010 | ++Clinocottus acuticeps | ++Sharpnose Sculpin | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (1997) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4E01030 | ++Clinocottus embryum | ++Calico Sculpin | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4E01040 | ++Clinocottus globiceps | ++Mosshead Sculpin | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCFA07030 | ++Clupea pallasii | ++Pacific Herring | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCNF01010 | ++Cololabis saira | ++Pacific Saury | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHA01020 | ++Coregonus artedi | ++Cisco | ++BWBS | ++S2 (2019) | ++Red | ++G5 (2015) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | +Y | ++ |
| +AFCHA01030 | ++Coregonus autumnalis | ++Arctic Cisco | ++BWBS | ++S1S2 (2019) | ++Red | ++G5 (2011) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | +Y | ++ |
| +AFCHA01040 | ++Coregonus clupeaformis | ++Lake Whitefish | ++ | ++S5 (2019) | ++Yellow | ++G5 (2015) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHA01090 | ++Coregonus nasus | ++Broad Whitefish | ++BWBS | ++S2 (2019) | ++Red | ++G5 (2016) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | +Y | ++ |
| +AFCHA01130 | ++Coregonus sardinella | ++Least Cisco | ++BWBS | ++S3 (2019) | ++Blue | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | +Y | ++ |
| +AFCMC06010 | ++Coryphaenoides acrolepis | ++Roughscale Grenadier | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCMC06020 | ++Coryphaenoides armatus | ++Russet Grenadier | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCMC06030 | ++Coryphaenoides cinereus | ++Popeye | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCMC06040 | ++Coryphaenoides filifer | ++Filamented Rattail | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCMC06050 | ++Coryphaenoides leptolepis | ++Ghostly Grenadier | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCMC06080 | ++Coryphaenoides yaquinae | ++Rough Abyssal Grendier | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4E02010 | ++Cottus aleuticus | ++Coastrange Sculpin | ++ | ++S5 (2019) | ++Yellow | ++G5 (2015) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4E02270 | ++Cottus aleuticus pop. 1 | ++Coastrange Sculpin, Cultus Population | ++CWH | ++S1S2 (2019) | ++Red | ++G5T1T2Q (2010) | ++E | ++1-T (2003) | ++ | ++ | +Y | ++ |
| +AFC4E02020 | ++Cottus asper | ++Prickly Sculpin | ++ | ++S5 (2019) | ++Yellow | ++G5 (2015) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4E02080 | ++Cottus cognatus | ++Slimy Sculpin | ++ | ++S5 (2019) | ++Yellow | ++G5 (2015) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4E02090 | ++Cottus confusus | ++Shorthead Sculpin | ++ICH; IDF | ++S3 (2019) | ++Blue | ++G5 (2011) | ++SC | ++1-SC | ++ | ++ | +Y | ++ |
| +AFC4E02053 | ++Cottus hubbsi | ++Columbia Sculpin | ++BG; ICH; IDF; PP | ++S3 (2019) | ++Blue | ++G4Q (2011) | ++SC | ++1-SC (2003) | ++ | ++ | +Y | +Y | +
| +AFC4E02220 | ++Cottus rhotheus | ++Torrent Sculpin | ++ | ++S4S5 (2019) | ++Yellow | ++G5 (2016) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4E02230 | ++Cottus ricei | ++Spoonhead Sculpin | ++ | ++S4 (2019) | ++Yellow | ++G5 (2015) | ++NAR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4E02380 | ++Cottus sp. 9 | ++Rocky Mountain Sculpin | ++ | ++S2 (2019) | ++Red | ++GNRT3T4Q (2021) | ++SC | ++1-SC (2017) | ++ | ++ | +Y | ++ |
| +AFCJB06010 | ++Couesius plumbeus | ++Lake Chub | ++BG; BWBS; CDF; CWH; ESSF; ICH; IDF; MH; MS; PP; SBPS; SBS; SWB | ++S5 (2019) | ++Yellow | ++G5 (2015) | ++DD | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCJB06012 | ++Couesius plumbeus pop. 2 | ++Lake Chub - Liard Hot Springs Populations | ++BWBS | ++S1S2 (2019) | ++Red | ++G5TNRQ | ++T | ++ | ++ | ++ | +Y | ++ |
| +AFCJB06013 | ++Couesius plumbeus pop. 3 | ++Lake Chub - Atlin Warm Springs Populations | ++BWBS; SWB | ++S1 (2019) | ++Red | ++G5TNRQ | ++T | ++ | ++ | ++ | +Y | ++ |
| +AFCSF01020 | ++Cryptacanthodes aleutensis | ++Dwarf Wrymouth | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCSF01030 | ++Cryptacanthodes giganteus | ++Giant Wrymouth | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCPA02010 | ++Culaea inconstans | ++Brook Stickleback | ++ | ++S5 (2018) | ++Yellow | ++G5 (2015) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC7A01020 | ++Cyclothone atraria | ++Yellow Bristlemouth | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC7A01030 | ++Cyclothone pallida | ++Tan Bristlemouth | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC7A01040 | ++Cyclothone pseudopallida | ++Slender Bristlemouth | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC7A01050 | ++Cyclothone signata | ++Showy Bristlemouth | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCQK01010 | ++Cymatogaster aggregata | ++Shiner Perch | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCJB08010 | ++Cyprinus carpio | ++Common Carp | ++ | ++SNA (2019) | ++Exotic | ++G5 (1996) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC7D03010 | ++Danaphos oculatus | ++Bottlelight | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4E28010 | ++Dasycottus setiger | ++Spinyhead Sculpin | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCS812010 | ++Derepodichthys alepidotus | ++Cuskpout | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCVH02010 | ++Diaphus theta | ++California Headlightfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4G10070 | ++Elassodiscus caudatus | ++Humpback Snailfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCTB03010 | ++Embassichthys bathybius | ++Deepsea Sole | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCQK05020 | ++Embiotoca lateralis | ++Striped Seaperch | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCFB04020 | ++Engraulis mordax | ++Northern Anchovy | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4E29010 | ++Enophrys bison | ++Buffalo Sculpin | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4E29030 | ++Enophrys lucasi | ++Leister Sculpin | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFBAA02120 | ++Entosphenus macrostomus | ++Cowichan Lake Lamprey | ++CWH | ++S2 (2019) | ++Red | ++G2 (2019) | ++T | ++1-T (2003) | ++ | ++ | +Y | ++ |
| +AFBAA02100 | ++Entosphenus tridentatus | ++Pacific Lamprey | ++ | ++S5 (2019) | ++Yellow | ++G4 (2012) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCTB04010 | ++Eopsetta jordani | ++Petrale Sole | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFABA01010 | ++Eptatretus deani | ++Black Hagfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFABA01020 | ++Eptatretus stoutii | ++Pacific Hagfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4C02010 | ++Erilepis zonifer | ++Skilfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHD01020 | ++Esox lucius | ++Northern Pike | ++ | ++S5 (2004) | ++Yellow | ++G5 (2015) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4G13030 | ++Eumicrotremus orbis | ++Pacific Spiny Lumpsucker | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCMA08010 | ++Gadus macrocephalus | ++Pacific Cod | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFDDG02030 | ++Galeorhinus galeus | ++Soupfin Shark | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++SC | ++1-SC (2009) | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCPA03010 | ++Gasterosteus aculeatus | ++Threespine Stickleback | ++ | ++S5 (2018) | ++Yellow | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCPA03014 | ++Gasterosteus aculeatus pop. 1 | ++Charlotte Unarmoured Threespine Stickleback | ++CWH | ++S1S2 (2018) | ++Red | ++G5T1T2Q (2019) | ++E | ++1-SC (2019) | ++ | ++ | +Y | ++ |
| +AFCPA03016 | ++Gasterosteus aculeatus pop. 2 | ++Little Quarry Lake Benthic Threespine Stickleback | ++CWHxm | ++S1 (2019) | ++Red | ++G5TNRQ | ++T | ++ | ++ | ++ | +Y | ++ |
| +AFCPA03017 | ++Gasterosteus aculeatus pop. 3 | ++Little Quarry Limnetic Threespine Stickleback | ++CWHxm | ++S1 (2019) | ++Red | ++G5TNRQ | ++T | ++ | ++ | ++ | +Y | ++ |
| +AFCPA03X10 | ++Gasterosteus sp. 1 | ++Giant Threespine Stickleback | ++CWH | ++S1S2 (2018) | ++Red | ++G1G2 (2019) | ++SC | ++1-SC (2019) | ++ | ++ | +Y | ++ |
| +AFCPA03140 | ++Gasterosteus sp. 12 | ++Hadley Lake Limnetic Stickleback | ++CDF | ++SX (2018) | ++Extinct | ++GX (2018) | ++XX | ++ | ++ | ++ | +Y | ++ |
| +AFCPA03150 | ++Gasterosteus sp. 13 | ++Hadley Lake Benthic Stickleback | ++CDF | ++SX (2018) | ++Extinct | ++GX (2018) | ++XX | ++ | ++ | ++ | +Y | ++ |
| +AFCPA03180 | ++Gasterosteus sp. 16 | ++Vananda Creek Limnetic Stickleback | ++CDF | ++S1 (2018) | ++Red | ++G1 (2018) | ++E | ++1-E (2003) | ++Y | ++ | +Y | ++ |
| +AFCPA03190 | ++Gasterosteus sp. 17 | ++Vananda Creek Benthic Stickleback | ++CDF | ++S1 (2018) | ++Red | ++G1 (2018) | ++E | ++1-E (2003) | ++Y | ++ | +Y | ++ |
| +AFCPA03200 | ++Gasterosteus sp. 18 | ++Misty Lake "Lake" Stickleback | ++CWH | ++S1 (2018) | ++Red | ++G1 (2018) | ++E | ++1-E (2010) | ++ | ++ | +Y | ++ |
| +AFCPA03210 | ++Gasterosteus sp. 19 | ++Misty Lake "Stream" Stickleback | ++CWH | ++S1 (2018) | ++Red | ++G1 (2018) | ++E | ++1-E (2010) | ++ | ++ | +Y | ++ |
| +AFCPA03040 | ++Gasterosteus sp. 2 | ++Enos Lake Limnetic Stickleback | ++CDF | ++SX (2018) | ++Red | ++GX (2019) | ++XX | ++1-E (2005) | ++ | ++ | +Y | ++ |
| +AFCPA03050 | ++Gasterosteus sp. 3 | ++Enos Lake Benthic Stickleback | ++CDF | ++SX (2018) | ++Red | ++GX (2019) | ++XX | ++1-E (2005) | ++ | ++ | +Y | ++ |
| +AFCPA03060 | ++Gasterosteus sp. 4 | ++Paxton Lake Limnetic Stickleback | ++CDF | ++S1 (2018) | ++Red | ++G1 (2018) | ++E | ++1-E (2003) | ++ | ++ | +Y | ++ |
| +AFCPA03070 | ++Gasterosteus sp. 5 | ++Paxton Lake Benthic Stickleback | ++CDF | ++S1 (2018) | ++Red | ++G1 (2016) | ++E | ++1-E (2003) | ++ | ++ | +Y | ++ |
| +AFCQH13010 | ++Genyonemus lineatus | ++White Croaker | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCQQ08030 | ++Gibbonsia metzi | ++Striped Kelpfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCQQ08040 | ++Gibbonsia montereyensis | ++Crevice Kelpfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCTB21010 | ++Glyptocephalus zachirus | ++Rex Sole | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCXA02020 | ++Gobiesox maeandricus | ++Northern Clingfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4E19020 | ++Gymnocanthus galeatus | ++Armorhead Sculpin | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC9B01010 | ++Gyrinomimus grahami | ++Flabby Whalefish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCMH04010 | ++Halargyreus johnsonii | ++Slender Codling | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4E31010 | ++Hemilepidotus hemilepidotus | ++Red Irish Lord | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4E31040 | ++Hemilepidotus spinosus | ++Brown Irish Lord | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4E20020 | ++Hemitripterus bolini | ++Bigmouth Sculpin | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCQQ10010 | ++Heterostichus rostratus | ++Giant Kelpfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4D01010 | ++Hexagrammos decagrammus | ++Kelp Greenling | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4D01020 | ++Hexagrammos lagocephalus | ++Rock Greenling | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4D01030 | ++Hexagrammos octogrammus | ++Masked Greenling | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4D01040 | ++Hexagrammos stelleri | ++Whitespotted Greenling | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFDBB01010 | ++Hexanchus griseus | ++Bluntnose Sixgill Shark | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++SC | ++1-SC (2009) | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCGA01010 | ++Hiodon alosoides | ++Goldeye | ++BWBS | ++S3 (2019) | ++Blue | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCTB06010 | ++Hippoglossoides elassodon | ++Flathead Sole | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCTB07020 | ++Hippoglossus stenolepis | ++Pacific Halibut | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHK01020 | ++Holtbyrnia latifrons | ++Teardrop Tubeshoulder | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCJB16020 | ++Hybognathus hankinsoni | ++Brassy Minnow | ++ | ++S4 (2011) | ++No Status | ++G5 (2015) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCJB16022 | ++Hybognathus hankinsoni - Pacific group | ++Brassy Minnow - Pacific Group | ++CDFmm; CWHdm; CWHxm | ++S2S3 (2019) | ++Blue | ++G5TNRQ | ++SC | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCJB16021 | ++Hybognathus hankinsoni - western Arctic group | ++Brassy Minnow - Western Arctic Group | ++ | ++S3S4 (2012) | ++Blue | ++G5TNRQ | ++SC | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFDAA01010 | ++Hydrolagus colliei | ++Spotted Ratfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCQK06020 | ++Hyperprosopon argenteum | ++Walleye Surfperch | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCQK06030 | ++Hyperprosopon ellipticum | ++Silver Surfperch | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHB01030 | ++Hypomesus pretiosus | ++Surf Smelt | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (1996) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4F01010 | ++Hypsagonus mozinoi | ++Kelp Poacher | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4F08010 | ++Hypsagonus quadricornis | ++Fourhorn Poacher | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4E32010 | ++Icelinus borealis | ++Northern Sculpin | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4E32020 | ++Icelinus burchami | ++Dusky Sculpin | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4E32040 | ++Icelinus filamentosus | ++Threadfin Sculpin | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4E32050 | ++Icelinus fimbriatus | ++Fringed Sculpin | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4E32080 | ++Icelinus tenuis | ++Spotfin Sculpin | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4E21050 | ++Icelus spiniger | ++Thorny Sculpin | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC7A04010 | ++Ichthyococcus elongatus | ++Slim Lightfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCS406010 | ++Icichthys lockingtoni | ++Medusafish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCSQ01010 | ++Icosteus aenigmaticus | ++Ragfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC7B08010 | ++Idiacanthus antrostomus | ++Pacific Dragonfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCTB16090 | ++Isopsetta isolepis | ++Butter Sole | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFDDE03010 | ++Isurus oxyrinchus | ++Shortfin Mako | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4E33010 | ++Jordania zonope | ++Longfin Sculpin | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCS309010 | ++Katsuwonus pelamis | ++Skipjack Tuna | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFDDE04010 | ++Lamna ditropis | ++Salmon Shark | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCVH04030 | ++Lampanyctus jordani | ++Brokenline Lanternfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFBAA02030 | ++Lampetra ayresii | ++River Lamprey | ++ | ++S5? (2019) | ++Yellow | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFBAA02180 | ++Lampetra richardsoni | ++Western Brook Lamprey | ++ | ++S4 (2019) | ++Yellow | ++G4G5 (2012) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFBAA02092 | ++Lampetra richardsoni pop. 1 | ++Western Brook Lamprey (Morrison Creek Population) | ++CWH | ++S1 (2019) | ++Red | ++G4G5T1Q (2005) | ++E | ++1-E (2003) | ++ | ++ | +Y | ++ |
| +AFC2A01010 | ++Lampris guttatus | ++Opah | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCQN21010 | ++Lepidogobius lepidus | ++Bay Goby | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCTB16080 | ++Lepidopsetta bilineata | ++Rock Sole | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCTB24010 | ++Lepidopsetta polyxystra | ++Northern Rock Sole | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCQB11030 | ++Lepomis gibbosus | ++Pumpkinseed | ++ | ++SNA (2019) | ++Exotic | ++G5 (2016) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCQB11060 | ++Lepomis macrochirus | ++Bluegill | ++ | ++SNA (2019) | ++Exotic | ++G5 (2015) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4F14010 | ++Leptagonus frenatus | ++Sawback Poacher | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCSC12030 | ++Leptoclinus maculatus | ++Daubed Shanny | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4E03010 | ++Leptocottus armatus | ++Pacific Staghorn Sculpin | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2016) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC8D03010 | ++Lestidiops ringens | ++Slender Barracudina | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHF01020 | ++Leuroglossus schmidti | ++Northern Smoothtongue | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHF01010 | ++Leuroglossus stilbius | ++California Smoothtongue | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCTB16020 | ++Limanda aspera | ++Yellowfin Sole | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4G07020 | ++Liparis callyodon | ++Spotted Snailfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4G07040 | ++Liparis cyclopus | ++Ribbon Snailfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4G07060 | ++Liparis dennyi | ++Marbled Snailfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4G07070 | ++Liparis florae | ++Tidepool Snailfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4G07080 | ++Liparis fucensis | ++Slipskin Snailfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4G07050 | ++Liparis gibbus | ++Varigated Snailfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4G07180 | ++Liparis greeni | ++Lobefin Snailfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4G07130 | ++Liparis mucosus | ++Slimy Snailfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4G07140 | ++Liparis pulchellus | ++Showy Snailfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4G07150 | ++Liparis rutteri | ++Ringtail Snailfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4G20010 | ++Lipariscus nanus | ++Pygmy Snailfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHF03010 | ++Lipolagus ochotensis | ++Popeye Blacksmelt | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCMA01010 | ++Lota lota | ++Burbot | ++ | ++S4S5 (2019) | ++Yellow | ++G5 (2015) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCMA01011 | ++Lota lota pop. 1 | ++Burbot (Lower Kootenay Population) | ++ICH | ++S1 (2019) | ++Red | ++G5T1Q (2001) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCSC11010 | ++Lumpenella longirostris | ++Longsnout Prickleback | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCSC12050 | ++Lumpenus sagitta | ++Snake Prickleback | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCSN01010 | ++Luvarus imperialis | ++Louvar | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCMG04040 | ++Lycenchelys camchatica | ++Kamchatka Eelpout | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCMG04020 | ++Lycenchelys crotalinus | ++Snakehead Eelpout | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCMG04030 | ++Lycenchelys jordani | ++Shortjaw Eelpout | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCMG04050 | ++Lycenchelys micropora | ++Manytoothed Eelpout | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCMG05060 | ++Lycodapus dermatinus | ++Looseskin Eelpout | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCMG05040 | ++Lycodapus endemoscotus | ++Deepwater Slipskin | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCMG05010 | ++Lycodapus fierasfer | ++Blackmouth Slipskin | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCMG05020 | ++Lycodapus mandibularis | ++Pallid Eelpout | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCMG05050 | ++Lycodapus pachysoma | ++Stout Slipskin | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCMG05030 | ++Lycodapus parviceps | ++Smallhead Eelpout | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCS805040 | ++Lycodapus psarostomatus | ++Specklemouth Eelpout | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCS806010 | ++Lycodes brevipes | ++Shortfin Eelpout | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCS806160 | ++Lycodes cortezianus | ++Bigfin Eelpout | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCS806020 | ++Lycodes diapterus | ++Black Eelpout | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCMG07010 | ++Lycodes pacificus | ++Blackbelly Eelpout | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCS806050 | ++Lycodes palearis | ++Wattled Eelpout | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCTB04020 | ++Lyopsetta exilis | ++Slender Sole | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHG01010 | ++Macropinna microstoma | ++Barreleye | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC8D01010 | ++Magnisudis atlantica | ++Duckbill Barracudina | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4E36010 | ++Malacocottus kincaidi | ++Blackfin Sculpin | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4E36020 | ++Malacocottus zonurus | ++Darkfin Sculpin | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHB06010 | ++Mallotus villosus | ++Capelin | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2008) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCJB54020 | ++Margariscus nachtriebi | ++Pearl Dace | ++ | ++S4 (2019) | ++Yellow | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | +Y | ++ |
| +AFCHK02010 | ++Maulisia argipalla | ++Pitted Tubeshoulder | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCRN04010 | ++Medialuna californiensis | ++Halfmoon | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC9C01010 | ++Melamphaes lugubris | ++Highsnout Ridgehead | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCMJ01010 | ++Melanonus zugmayeri | ++Arrowtail | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCS811020 | ++Melanostigma pammelas | ++Pacific Soft Pout | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCMA10020 | ++Merluccius productus | ++Pacific Hake | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCMA02020 | ++Microgadus proximus | ++Pacific Tomcod | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCQB12020 | ++Micropterus dolomieu | ++Smallmouth Bass | ++ | ++SNA (2019) | ++Exotic | ++G5 (2016) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCQB12050 | ++Micropterus salmoides | ++Largemouth Bass | ++ | ++SNA (2019) | ++Exotic | ++G5 (2016) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCTB14010 | ++Microstomus pacificus | ++Dover Sole | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCJD01010 | ++Misgurnus anguillicaudatus | ++Oriental Weatherfish | ++ | ++SNA (2019) | ++Exotic | ++G5 (1996) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC3F01020 | ++Mola mola | ++Ocean Sunfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC3F01030 | ++Mola tecta | ++Hoodwinker Sunfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCJB24010 | ++Mylocheilus caurinus | ++Peamouth | ++ | ++S5 (2019) | ++Yellow | ++G5 (2016) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4E04070 | ++Myoxocephalus polyacanthocephalus | ++Great Sculpin | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4E04100 | ++Myoxocephalus scorpius | ++Shorthorn Sculpin | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCVH04010 | ++Nannobrachium regale | ++Pinpoint Lanternfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCVH13010 | ++Nannobrachium ritteri | ++Broadfin Lanternfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHJ01010 | ++Nansenia candida | ++Bluethroat Argentine | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCQZ07010 | ++Naucrates ductor | ++Pilotfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4E05010 | ++Nautichthys oculofasciatus | ++Sailfin Sculpin | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4E05030 | ++Nautichthys robustus | ++Shortmast Sculpin | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4G14010 | ++Nectoliparis pelagicus | ++Tadpole Snailfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCEJ01010 | ++Nemichthys scolopaceus | ++Slender Snipe Eel | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCVJ01010 | ++Neoscopelus macrolepidotus | ++Glowingfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCMC02030 | ++Nezumia stelgidolepis | ++California Grenadier | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCUA01010 | ++Notacanthus chemnitzii | ++Largescale Tapirfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFDBB02010 | ++Notorynchus cepedianus | ++Broadnose Sevengill Shark | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCVH05040 | ++Notoscopelus japonicus | ++Spiny Lanternfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCJB28120 | ++Notropis atherinoides | ++Emerald Shiner | ++ | ++SU (2019) | ++Unknown | ++G5 (2015) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | +Y | ++ |
| +AFCJB28550 | ++Notropis hudsonius | ++Spottail Shiner | ++BWBS | ++S1S2 (2019) | ++Red | ++G5 (2015) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | +Y | ++ |
| +AFC4F10010 | ++Odontopyxis trispinosa | ++Pygmy Poacher | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4E06010 | ++Oligocottus maculosus | ++Tidepool Sculpin | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4E06020 | ++Oligocottus rimensis | ++Saddleback Sculpin | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4E06040 | ++Oligocottus snyderi | ++Fluffy Sculpin | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHA02080 | ++Oncorhynchus clarkii | ++Cutthroat Trout | ++ | ++S4 (2000) | ++No Status | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHA0208A | ++Oncorhynchus clarkii clarkii | ++Cutthroat Trout, clarkii subspecies | ++BWBS; CDF; CWH; ICH; SBS | ++S3S4 (2004) | ++Blue | ++G5T4 (1997) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHA02088 | ++Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi | ++Cutthroat Trout, lewisi subspecies | ++BWBS; ESSF; ICH; IDF; MS; SBS | ++S2S3 (2018) | ++Blue | ++G5T4 (2013) | ++SC | ++1-SC (2010) | ++Y | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHA02010 | ++Oncorhynchus gorbuscha | ++Pink Salmon | ++ | ++SNR (2019) | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2016) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHA02020 | ++Oncorhynchus keta | ++Chum Salmon | ++ | ++SNR (2019) | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2016) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHA02030 | ++Oncorhynchus kisutch | ++Coho Salmon | ++ | ++SNR (2019) | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHA02037 | ++Oncorhynchus kisutch pop. 7 | ++Coho Salmon (Interior Fraser Population) | ++ | ++SNR (2016) | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5TNRQ | ++T | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHA02090 | ++Oncorhynchus mykiss | ++Rainbow Trout/Steelhead | ++ | ++S5 (2011) | ++Yellow | ++G5 (2022) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHA0213E | ++Oncorhynchus mykiss - coastal lineage | ++Rainbow Trout/Steelhead - Coastal Lineage | ++ | ++SNR (2010) | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5T3Q (2009) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHA0213D | ++Oncorhynchus mykiss - interior lineage | ++Rainbow Trout/Steelhead - Interior Lineage | ++ | ++SNR (2010) | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5T3Q (2009) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHA0213F | ++Oncorhynchus mykiss - large lake piscivore ecotype | ++Rainbow Trout - Large Lake Piscivore Ecotype | ++ | ++S4 (2012) | ++Yellow | ++G5TNRQ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHA0213M | ++Oncorhynchus mykiss pop. 46 | ++Steelhead Trout - Thompson River Population | ++ | ++S1 (2019) | ++Red | ++G5TNRQ | ++E | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHA0213N | ++Oncorhynchus mykiss pop. 47 | ++Steelhead Trout - Chilcotin River Population | ++ | ++S1 (2019) | ++Red | ++G5TNRQ | ++E | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHA02040 | ++Oncorhynchus nerka | ++Sockeye Salmon | ++ | ++SNR (2019) | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2022) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHA0204B | ++Oncorhynchus nerka pop. 10 | ++Sockeye Salmon - Bowron-ES Population | ++ | ++SNR (2019) | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5TNRQ | ++E | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHA0204C | ++Oncorhynchus nerka pop. 11 | ++Sockeye Salmon - Chilliwack-ES Population | ++ | ++SNR (2019) | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5TNRQ | ++NAR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHA0204D | ++Oncorhynchus nerka pop. 12 | ++Sockeye Salmon - Francois-Fraser-S Population | ++ | ++SNR (2019) | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5TNRQ | ++SC | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHA0204E | ++Oncorhynchus nerka pop. 13 | ++Sockeye Salmon - Nadina-Francois-ES Population | ++ | ++SNR (2019) | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5TNRQ | ++NAR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHA0204F | ++Oncorhynchus nerka pop. 14 | ++Sockeye Salmon - Harrison (D/S)-L Population | ++ | ++SNR (2019) | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5TNRQ | ++SC | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHA0204G | ++Oncorhynchus nerka pop. 15 | ++Sockeye Salmon - Harrison (U/S)-L Population | ++ | ++SNR (2019) | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5TNRQ | ++E | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHA0204H | ++Oncorhynchus nerka pop. 16 | ++Sockeye Salmon - Kamloops-ES Population | ++ | ++SNR (2019) | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5TNRQ | ++SC | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHA0204J | ++Oncorhynchus nerka pop. 17 | ++Sockeye Salmon - Lillooet-Harrison-L Population | ++ | ++SNR (2019) | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5TNRQ | ++SC | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHA0204K | ++Oncorhynchus nerka pop. 18 | ++Sockeye Salmon - Nahatlatch-ES Population | ++ | ++SNR (2019) | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5TNRQ | ++SC | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHA0204L | ++Oncorhynchus nerka pop. 19 | ++Sockeye Salmon - North Barriere-ES Population | ++ | ++SNR (2019) | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5TNRQ | ++T | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHA0204M | ++Oncorhynchus nerka pop. 20 | ++Sockeye Salmon - Pitt-ES Population | ++ | ++SNR (2019) | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5TNRQ | ++NAR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHA0204N | ++Oncorhynchus nerka pop. 21 | ++Sockeye Salmon - Quesnel-S Population | ++ | ++SNR (2019) | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5TNRQ | ++E | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHA0204P | ++Oncorhynchus nerka pop. 22 | ++Sockeye Salmon - Seton-L Population | ++ | ++SNR (2019) | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5TNRQ | ++E | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHA0204Q | ++Oncorhynchus nerka pop. 23 | ++Sockeye Salmon - Shuswap Complex-L Population | ++ | ++SNR (2019) | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5TNRQ | ++NAR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHA0204R | ++Oncorhynchus nerka pop. 24 | ++Sockeye Salmon - Shuswap-ES Population | ++ | ++SNR (2019) | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5TNRQ | ++NAR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHA0204S | ++Oncorhynchus nerka pop. 25 | ++Sockeye Salmon - Takla-Trembleur-EStu Population | ++ | ++SNR (2019) | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5TNRQ | ++E | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHA0204T | ++Oncorhynchus nerka pop. 26 | ++Sockeye Salmon - Takla-Trembleur-Stuart-S Population | ++ | ++SNR (2019) | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5TNRQ | ++E | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHA0204U | ++Oncorhynchus nerka pop. 27 | ++Sockeye Salmon - Taseko-ES Population | ++ | ++SNR (2019) | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5TNRQ | ++E | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHA0204V | ++Oncorhynchus nerka pop. 28 | ++Sockeye Salmon - Harrison River (River-Type) Population | ++ | ++SNR (2019) | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5TNRQ | ++NAR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHA0204W | ++Oncorhynchus nerka pop. 29 | ++Sockeye Salmon - Widgeon (River-Type) Population | ++ | ++SNR (2019) | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5TNRQ | ++T | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHA02048 | ++Oncorhynchus nerka pop. 7 | ++Sockeye Salmon - Cultus Lake Population | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5T1Q (2005) | ++E | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHA02049 | ++Oncorhynchus nerka pop. 8 | ++Sockeye Salmon - Sakinaw Lake Population | ++ | ++S1 (2020) | ++No Status | ++G5T1Q (2005) | ++E | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHA0204A | ++Oncorhynchus nerka pop. 9 | ++Sockeye Salmon - Anderson-Seton-ES Population | ++ | ++SNR (2019) | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5TNRQ | ++NAR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHA02050 | ++Oncorhynchus tshawytscha | ++Chinook Salmon | ++BAFA; BG; BWBS; CDF; CWH; ESSF; ICH; IDF; MH; MS; PP; SBPS; SBS; SWB | ++SNR (2019) | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++E/T/SC/DD/NAR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCYH02010 | ++Oneirodes bulbosus | ++Bulbous Dreamer | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCYH02020 | ++Oneirodes thompsoni | ++Alaska Dreamer | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4D02010 | ++Ophiodon elongatus | ++Lingcod | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC7B07010 | ++Opostomias mitsuii | ++Pitgum Lanternfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHB02040 | ++Osmerus dentex | ++Rainbow Smelt | ++ | ++SU (2019) | ++Unknown | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4G22010 | ++Osteodiscus cascadiae | ++Bigtail Snailfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4D03010 | ++Oxylebius pictus | ++Painted Greenling | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCMG03010 | ++Pachycara bulbiceps | ++Abyssal Eelpout | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCMG03020 | ++Pachycara gymninium | ++Nakedneck Eelpout | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCMG03030 | ++Pachycara lepinium | ++Scalyneck Eelpout | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4F11010 | ++Pallasina barbata | ++Tubenose Poacher | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4G15040 | ++Paraliparis cephalus | ++Swellhead Snailfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4G15010 | ++Paraliparis deani | ++Prickly Snailfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4G15050 | ++Paraliparis latifrons | ++Bigpored Snailfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4G15080 | ++Paraliparis melanobranchus | ++Phantom Snailfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4G15060 | ++Paraliparis paucidens | ++Toothless Snailfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4G15070 | ++Paraliparis rosaceus | ++Pink Snailfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4E08010 | ++Paricelinus hopliticus | ++Thornback Sculpin | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCTB16100 | ++Parophrys vetulus | ++English Sole | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCS401030 | ++Peprilus simillimus | ++Pacific Pompano | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCQC03010 | ++Perca flavescens | ++Yellow Perch | ++ | ++SU (2019) | ++Unknown | ++G5 (2015) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCLC01010 | ++Percopsis omiscomaycus | ++Trout-perch | ++ | ++S4S5 (2019) | ++Yellow | ++G5 (2015) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCQK09020 | ++Phanerodon furcatus | ++White Seaperch | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCQR01020 | ++Pholis clemensi | ++Longfin Gunnel | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCQR01070 | ++Pholis laeta | ++Crescent Gunnel | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2008) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCQR01010 | ++Pholis ornata | ++Saddleback Gunnel | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCQR01090 | ++Pholis schultzi | ++Red Gunnel | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCSC13010 | ++Phytichthys chirus | ++Ribbon Prickleback | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCJB32020 | ++Pimephales promelas | ++Fathead Minnow | ++ | ++SNA (2019) | ++Exotic | ++G5 (2015) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCTB01010 | ++Platichthys stellatus | ++Starry Flounder | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCJB57010 | ++Platygobio gracilis | ++Flathead Chub | ++ | ++S4 (2019) | ++Yellow | ++G5 (2015) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCSC15010 | ++Plectobranchus evides | ++Bluebarred Prickleback | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4D04010 | ++Pleurogrammus monopterygius | ++Atka Mackerel | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCTB17010 | ++Pleuronichthys coenosus | ++C-O Sole | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCTB17020 | ++Pleuronichthys decurrens | ++Curlfin Sole | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4F13010 | ++Podothecus accipenserinus | ++Sturgeon Poacher | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCUA02010 | ++Polyacanthonotus challengeri | ++Longnose Tapirfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCQB13020 | ++Pomoxis nigromaculatus | ++Black Crappie | ++ | ++SNA (2019) | ++Exotic | ++G5 (2016) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCWA02020 | ++Porichthys notatus | ++Plainfin Midshipman | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCSC16010 | ++Poroclinus rothrocki | ++Whitebarred Prickleback | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC9C02010 | ++Poromitra crassiceps | ++Crested Ridgehead | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFDDG05010 | ++Prionace glauca | ++Blue Shark | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++NAR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHA03020 | ++Prosopium coulterii | ++Pygmy Whitefish | ++ | ++S4 (2019) | ++Yellow | ++G5 (2008) | ++NAR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHA03021 | ++Prosopium coulterii pop. 1 | ++Pygmy Whitefish - Southwestern Yukon Beringian Populations | ++ | ++S2S3 (2019) | ++Blue | ++G5TNRQ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHA03023 | ++Prosopium coulterii pop. 3 | ++Pygmy Whitefish - Pacific Populations | ++ | ++S4 (2019) | ++Yellow | ++G5TNRQ | ++NAR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHA03030 | ++Prosopium cylindraceum | ++Round Whitefish | ++ | ++S4 (2019) | ++Yellow | ++G5 (2015) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHA03060 | ++Prosopium williamsoni | ++Mountain Whitefish | ++ | ++S5 (2019) | ++Yellow | ++G5 (2022) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCVH06010 | ++Protomyctophum crockeri | ++California Flashlightfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCVH06020 | ++Protomyctophum thompsoni | ++Bigeye Flashlightfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCTB18010 | ++Psettichthys melanostictus | ++Sand Sole | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHF02010 | ++Pseudobathylagus milleri | ++Stout Blacksmelt | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCRR01020 | ++Pseudopentaceros wheeleri | ++North Pacific Pelagic Armorhead | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4E10010 | ++Psychrolutes paradoxus | ++Tadpole Sculpin | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4E10030 | ++Psychrolutes phrictus | ++Blob Sculpin | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4E10020 | ++Psychrolutes sigalutes | ++Soft Sculpin | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFDFE01060 | ++Pteroplatytrygon violacea | ++Pelagic Stingray | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCSE01010 | ++Ptilichthys goodei | ++Quillfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCJB35030 | ++Ptychocheilus oregonensis | ++Northern Pikeminnow | ++ | ++S5 (2019) | ++Yellow | ++G5 (2016) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCPA04010 | ++Pungitius pungitius | ++Ninespine Stickleback | ++ | ++SU (2018) | ++Unknown | ++G5 (2015) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | +Y | ++ |
| +AFC4E11010 | ++Radulinus asprellus | ++Slim Sculpin | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4E11020 | ++Radulinus boleoides | ++Darter Sculpin | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFDFD01020 | ++Raja binoculata | ++Big Skate | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++NAR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFDFD01120 | ++Raja rhina | ++Longnose Skate | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++NAR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCTB20010 | ++Reinhardtius hippoglossoides | ++Greeenland Halibut | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCSZ03010 | ++Remora australis | ++Whalesucker | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCQK10020 | ++Rhacochilus vacca | ++Pile Perch | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4E12010 | ++Rhamphocottus richardsonii | ++Grunt Sculpin | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCJB37020 | ++Rhinichthys cataractae | ++Longnose Dace | ++ | ++S5 (2019) | ++Yellow | ++G5 (2015) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCJB37110 | ++Rhinichthys cataractae - Chehalis lineage | ++Nooksack Dace | ++CWH | ++S1 (2019) | ++Red | ++G3 (1996) | ++E | ++1-E (2003) | ++ | ++ | +Y | ++ |
| +AFCJB37040 | ++Rhinichthys falcatus | ++Leopard Dace | ++ | ++S5? (2019) | ++Yellow | ++G4 (2016) | ++NAR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCJB37050 | ++Rhinichthys osculus | ++Speckled Dace | ++IDF; PP | ++S3? (2019) | ++Blue | ++G5 (1996) | ++E | ++1-E (2009) | ++ | ++ | +Y | ++ |
| +AFCJB37120 | ++Rhinichthys umatilla | ++Umatilla Dace | ++BG; ICH; IDF | ++S2 (2019) | ++Red | ++G4 (1992) | ++T | ++3 (2005) | ++ | ++ | +Y | +Y | +
| +AFCQN15060 | ++Rhinogobiops nicholsii | ++Blackeye Goby | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4G23010 | ++Rhinoliparis attenuatus | ++Slim Snailfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCJB39010 | ++Richardsonius balteatus | ++Redside Shiner | ++ | ++S5 (2019) | ++Yellow | ++G5 (2016) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCXA03020 | ++Rimicola muscarum | ++Kelp Clingfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCRY03010 | ++Ronquilus jordani | ++Northern Ronquil | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4E40020 | ++Ruscarius meanyi | ++Puget Sound Sculpin | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHK03010 | ++Sagamichthys abei | ++Shining Tubeshoulder | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHA04060 | ++Salmo salar | ++Atlantic Salmon | ++ | ++SNA (2019) | ++Exotic | ++G5 (2016) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHA04070 | ++Salmo trutta | ++Brown Trout | ++ | ++SNA (2019) | ++Exotic | ++G5 (1996) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHA05020 | ++Salvelinus confluentus | ++Bull Trout | ++BG; BWBS; CWH; ESSF; ICH; IDF; MS; PP; SBPS; SBS; SWB | ++S3S4 (2018) | ++Blue | ++G5 (2017) | ++SC | ++ | ++Y | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHA05122 | ++Salvelinus confluentus pop. 10 | ++Bull Trout - Western Arctic Populations | ++ | ++S3 (2018) | ++Blue | ++G5TNRQ | ++SC | ++1-SC (2019) | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHA05124 | ++Salvelinus confluentus pop. 12 | ++Bull Trout - Upper Yukon Watershed Populations | ++ | ++SU (2018) | ++No Status | ++G5TNRQ | ++DD | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHA0502N | ++Salvelinus confluentus pop. 26 | ++Bull Trout - Pacific Populations | ++ | ++S3S4 (2018) | ++Blue | ++G5T3Q (2015) | ++NAR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHA0502Q | ++Salvelinus confluentus pop. 28 | ++Bull Trout - South Coast Population | ++CDF; CWH; MH | ++S2S3 (2018) | ++Blue | ++G5T3Q (2015) | ++SC | ++1-SC (2019) | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHA05030 | ++Salvelinus fontinalis | ++Brook Trout | ++ | ++SNA (2019) | ++Exotic | ++G5 (2015) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHA05040 | ++Salvelinus malma | ++Dolly Varden | ++ | ++S4 (2012) | ++Yellow | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHA05042 | ++Salvelinus malma - northern lineage | ++Dolly Varden - Northern Lineage | ++ | ++S4S5 (2012) | ++Yellow | ++G5T4T5Q (2011) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHA05041 | ++Salvelinus malma - southern lineage | ++Dolly Varden - Southern Lineage | ++ | ++S4 (2012) | ++Yellow | ++G5TNRQ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHA05050 | ++Salvelinus namaycush | ++Lake Trout | ++ | ++S4 (2019) | ++Yellow | ++G5 (2015) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCQC05020 | ++Sander vitreus | ++Walleye | ++ | ++S4S5 (2019) | ++Yellow | ++G5 (2015) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCS306010 | ++Sarda chiliensis | ++Pacific Bonito | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCFA10010 | ++Sardinops sagax | ++Pacific Sardine | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++NAR | ++3 | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCS307010 | ++Scomber japonicus | ++Pacific Chub Mackerel | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC9C03010 | ++Scopelogadus mizolepis | ++Flabby Ridgehead | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC8H01010 | ++Scopelosaurus harryi | ++Scaly Waryfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4E13010 | ++Scorpaenichthys marmoratus | ++Cabezon | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCSG01010 | ++Scytalina cerdale | ++Graveldiver | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4A06010 | ++Sebastes aleutianus | ++Rougheye Rockfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++SC | ++1-SC (2009) | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4A06020 | ++Sebastes alutus | ++Pacific Ocean Perch | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4A06040 | ++Sebastes auriculatus | ++Brown Rockfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4A06050 | ++Sebastes aurora | ++Aurora Rockfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4A06060 | ++Sebastes babcocki | ++Redbanded Rockfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4A06070 | ++Sebastes borealis | ++Shortraker Rockfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4A06080 | ++Sebastes brevispinis | ++Silvergray Rockfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4A06100 | ++Sebastes caurinus | ++Copper Rockfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4A06110 | ++Sebastes chlorostictus | ++Greenspotted Rockfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4A06130 | ++Sebastes ciliatus | ++Dark Rockfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4A06150 | ++Sebastes crameri | ++Darkblotched Rockfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++SC | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4A06720 | ++Sebastes diaconus | ++Deacon Rockfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4A06170 | ++Sebastes diploproa | ++Splitnose Rockfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4A06180 | ++Sebastes elongatus | ++Greenstriped Rockfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4A06190 | ++Sebastes emphaeus | ++Puget Sound Rockfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4A06210 | ++Sebastes entomelas | ++Widow Rockfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4A06240 | ++Sebastes flavidus | ++Yellowtail Rockfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4A06260 | ++Sebastes goodei | ++Chilipepper | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4A06270 | ++Sebastes helvomaculatus | ++Rosethorn Rockfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4A06290 | ++Sebastes jordani | ++Shortbelly Rockfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4A06330 | ++Sebastes maliger | ++Quillback Rockfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++T | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4A06350 | ++Sebastes melanops | ++Black Rockfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4A06370 | ++Sebastes melanostomus | ++Blackgill Rockfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4A06390 | ++Sebastes miniatus | ++Vermilion Rockfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4A06410 | ++Sebastes nebulosus | ++China Rockfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4A06420 | ++Sebastes nigrocinctus | ++Tiger Rockfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4A06440 | ++Sebastes paucispinis | ++Bocaccio | ++ | ++SNR (2002) | ++Not Reviewed | ++G4 (2003) | ++E | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4A06460 | ++Sebastes pinniger | ++Canary Rockfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++T | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4A06470 | ++Sebastes polyspinis | ++Northern Rockfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4A06480 | ++Sebastes proriger | ++Redstripe Rockfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4A06500 | ++Sebastes reedi | ++Yellowmouth Rockfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++T | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4A06530 | ++Sebastes ruberrimus | ++Yelloweye Rockfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++T | ++1-SC | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4A06560 | ++Sebastes rufus | ++Bank Rockfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4A06570 | ++Sebastes saxicola | ++Stripetail Rockfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4A06700 | ++Sebastes variabilis | ++Dusky Rockfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4A06630 | ++Sebastes variegatus | ++Harlequin Rockfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4A06640 | ++Sebastes wilsoni | ++Pygmy Rockfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4A06650 | ++Sebastes zacentrus | ++Sharpchin Rockfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4A07010 | ++Sebastolobus alascanus | ++Shortspine Thornyhead | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4A07020 | ++Sebastolobus altivelis | ++Longspine Thornyhead | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++SC | ++1-SC (2009) | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCQZ11040 | ++Seriola lalandi | ++Yellowtail | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCQH16010 | ++Seriphus politus | ++Queenfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCEK01010 | ++Serrivomer jesperseni | ++Crossthroat Sawpalate | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFDEA06020 | ++Somniosus pacificus | ++Pacific Sleeper Shark | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCMD08010 | ++Spectrunculus grandis | ++Giant Cusk-eel | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCQV01010 | ++Sphyraena argentea | ++Pacific Barracuda | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHB03030 | ++Spirinchus sp. 1 | ++Pygmy Longfin Smelt | ++CWH | ++S2 (2019) | ++Red | ++G5T2Q (2019) | ++DD | ++ | ++ | ++ | +Y | ++ |
| +AFCHB03020 | ++Spirinchus starksi | ++Night Smelt | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHB03010 | ++Spirinchus thaleichthys | ++Longfin Smelt | ++CDF; CWH | ++S3? (2019) | ++Blue | ++G5 (2016) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFDEA07040 | ++Squalus suckleyi | ++Spiny Dogfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++SC | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4F15010 | ++Stellerina xyosterna | ++Pixie Poacher | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCVH07010 | ++Stenobrachius leucopsarus | ++Northern Lampfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCVH07020 | ++Stenobrachius nannochir | ++Garnet Lanternfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHA06010 | ++Stenodus leucichthys | ++Inconnu | ++BWBS; CWH | ++S3 (2019) | ++Blue | ++G5 (2016) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | +Y | ++ |
| +AFC7C02010 | ++Sternoptyx pseudobscura | ++Highlight Hatchetface | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCSC17010 | ++Stichaeus punctatus | ++Arctic Shanny | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCVH14010 | ++Symbolophorus californiensis | ++Bigfin Lanternfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCTC04020 | ++Symphurus atricaudus | ++California Tonguefish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4E15010 | ++Synchirus gilli | ++Manacled Sculpin | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCPB010D0 | ++Syngnathus leptorhynchus | ++Bay Pipefish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC8B02030 | ++Synodus lucioceps | ++Smallscale Lizardfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC7B02010 | ++Tactostoma macropus | ++Longfin Dragonfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHH01010 | ++Talismania bifurcata | ++Threadfin Slickhead | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCRH03010 | ++Taractes asper | ++Rough Pomfret | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCMG06010 | ++Taranetzella lyoderma | ++Ghostly Eelpout | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2009) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCVH08010 | ++Tarletonbeania crenularis | ++Blue Lanternfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCVH08020 | ++Tarletonbeania taylori | ++Taillight Lanternfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCS409020 | ++Tetragonurus cuvieri | ++Smalleye Squaretail | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCEC04010 | ++Thalassenchelys coheni | ++Transparent Eel | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHB04010 | ++Thaleichthys pacificus | ++Eulachon | ++CWH | ++S2S3 (2004) | ++Blue | ++G5 (2005) | ++E/T | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHB04011 | ++Thaleichthys pacificus pop. 1 | ++Eulachon - Central Pacific Coast population | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5TNRQ | ++E | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHB04012 | ++Thaleichthys pacificus pop. 2 | ++Eulachon - Fraser River Population | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5TNRQ | ++E | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHB04013 | ++Thaleichthys pacificus pop. 3 | ++Eulachon - Nass / Skeena Rivers Population | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5TNRQ | ++SC | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCMA14010 | ++Theragra chalcogramma | ++Walleye Pollock | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCS308010 | ++Thunnus alalunga | ++Albacore | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCS308060 | ++Thunnus orientalis | ++Pacific Bluefin Tuna | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHA07010 | ++Thymallus arcticus | ++Arctic Grayling | ++ | ++S4 (2004) | ++Yellow | ++G5 (2015) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHA07013 | ++Thymallus arcticus - Nahanni lineage | ++Arctic Grayling - Nahanni Lineage | ++ | ++S3? (2012) | ++Blue | ++G5TNRQ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCHA07014 | ++Thymallus arcticus - Southern Beringean lineage | ++Arctic Grayling - Southern Beringean lineage | ++ | ++S4? (2012) | ++Yellow | ++G5TNRQ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCJB43010 | ++Tinca tinca | ++Tench | ++ | ++SNA (2019) | ++Exotic | ++G5 (1996) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFDFB02010 | ++Torpedo californica | ++Pacific Electric Ray | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC2C02010 | ++Trachipterus altivelis | ++King-of-the-salmon | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCQZ13020 | ++Trachurus symmetricus | ++Jack Mackerel | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCRW02010 | ++Trichodon trichodon | ++Pacific Sandfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4E16020 | ++Triglops macellus | ++Roughspine Sculpin | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4E16050 | ++Triglops pingelii | ++Ribbed Sculpin | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4F16010 | ++Xeneretmus latifrons | ++Blacktip Poacher | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4F16020 | ++Xeneretmus leiops | ++Smootheye Poacher | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4F16040 | ++Xeneretmus triacanthus | ++Bluespotted Poacher | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCEG09020 | ++Xenomystax atrarius | ++Twinpored Eel | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCSM01010 | ++Xiphias gladius | ++Swordfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G5 (2017) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCSC19010 | ++Xiphister atropurpureus | ++Black Prickleback | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCSC19020 | ++Xiphister mucosus | ++Rock Prickleback | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFC4D05020 | ++Zaniolepis latipinnis | ++Longspine Combfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++GNR | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| +AFCSH01010 | ++Zaprora silenus | ++Prowfish | ++ | ++SNR | ++Not Reviewed | ++G4G5 (2008) | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| Search Criteria |
| Fish, Freshwater OR Fish, Marine Sort Order:Scientific Name Ascending |
| Open Government License– BC |